^ 


^ ^ 

REESE    LIBRARY 

OF   THK 

UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA. 

Aaessiofis  No.^-^A^^         Shelf  No 

%¥ • ^ 


r-^         / 


/ 


^'■■' .  •  ,»m\ 


W  #%v    fi^^f^   M^m^^rC  '^"^ 


..    *       * 


i* 


..#• 


'Ai 


# 


MILLEMRIANISM  DEFENDED; 


REPLY  TO  PROF.  STUART'S 


STRICTURES  ON  THE  REV.  G.  DUFFIELD'S  RECENT  WORK 
ON  THE  SECOND  COMING  OF  CHRIST/' 

IN   WHICH 

HE     former's     false     ASSUMPTIONS    ARE     POINTED    OUT,    AND    THB 
FALLACY    OF    HIS    INTERPRETATION    OF    DIFFERENT    IMPOR- 
TANT   PASSAGES    OF    SCRIPTURE    ARE    BOTH    PHILO- 
LOGICALLY  AND   EXEGETICALLY  EXPOSED. 


t^^w.j: 


GEO.    DUFFIELD, 
11 


TKtTOa    OV   XHJ! 


"  I  scarce  ever  kne 
own,  but  he  was  more  imp: 
He  could  argue  against  the 
one  who  is  afraid  of  his  scheme." 


CHTJBCH   or   DSTBOIT. 


in  divinity,  a  contrivance  of  his 
tgfefLt  fundamentals  of  Christianity. 
■^  '    with  more  temper,  than  against 


NEW- YORK : 

MARK  H.  NEWMAN,  199  BROADWAY. 

1843. 


-m^ 


EIntered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1843,  by 

MARK    H.    NEWMAN, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern  District 

of  New-YoLk.- 


CONTENTS. 

Page 

Chap.  I.     Introduction             1 

II.     The  tone  and  spirit  of  the  "Strictures"        -  12 

III.  Prof.  Stuart's    sketch  or  review  of  the  Disser- 

tations       --.--_-  20 

IV.  The  absurdities  and    dilemma  into  wliich    his 

definition  of  Historic  Realities  has  led  him    -  37 

V.  A  specimen  of  his  Logic         .        -        _        _  5t 

VI.  A  specimen  of  his  Unfairness  and  Sensitiveness  53 

VII.  Inexcusable  errors  in  his  statement  of  the  grand 

outlines  of  the  Literal  System  of  prophetic 

interpretation        ------  57 

VIII.     His  remarks  about  the  authority  of  the  Fathers  61 
IX.     His  strictures  on  the  Scriptural  Argument         -  71 
X.     His  summary  process  of  getting  rid  of  the  Argu- 
ment          83 

XL     His  adroitness  in  evading  a  Main  Question      -  83 

XII.     His  charges  of  the  want  of  Explicitness        -  113 

XIII.  Flis  charge  of  "  apparent  Inconsistencies  and  In- 

congruities"        ----_-  122 

XIV.  Prof  S.'s  remarks  on  his  principles  of  Interpre- 

tation          146 

XV.  His  final  notice  of  the  Fathers  and  others        -  177 


NOTICE. 

The  Publisher  deems  it  but  justice,  both  to  the  Author  and 
himself  to  state,  that  the  delay  in  the  publication  of  this  work, 
beyond  th«  time  announced  for  its  appearance,  was  a  source  of 
mutual  disappointment,  entirely  owing  to  accidental  circum- 
stances over  which  neither  of  them  had  any  control. 

New  York,  June,  1843. 


ERRATA. 

For  Daubcny,  page  12  line  14  and  page  15  line  12,  read  Daubuz 
Page  34,  last  line,  for  ofnential  things,  read  essential  thintr. 
Page  94  line  27,  for  reverts,  read  resorts. 


p 


The  following  pages  have  been  prepared,  and  are  pre- 
sented to  the  public  under  many  embarrassments.     Pastoral 
duties  and  engagements,  and  interruptions  incident  to  the 
pastoral  office,  place  a  minister  settled  among  a  numerous 
flock,  at  great  disadvantage,  compared  with  him,  who  is  free 
from  the  cares  and  labours  attendant  on  preparations  for 
the  Sabbath,  and  week-day  services,  and  other  unatoidable 
demands  on  his  time.     The  remoteness,  too,  of  the  region, 
where  the  author  dwells, — especially  at  this  season  of  the 
year, — the  distance  being  by  reason  of  the  state  of  the  wea- 
ther and  roads,  threefold  greater  than  in  the  period  when 
navigation  is  open, — of  necessity  caused  delay ;  and  gave 
public  and  more  favourable  opportunity,  for  the  publication 
to  which  this  is  a  reply,  to  make  its  impression,  and  to  pur- 
sue its  way  without  any  thing  to  counteract  it.    Add  to  this, 
the  great  reputation,  the  high  station,  the  commanding  in- 
fluence possessed  by,   and  the  almost  prescriptive  right  of 
authoritative  judgment  in  such  matters  extensively  conceded 
to,  the  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in  the  Theological 
Seminary  at  Andover,  might  predispose  some  to  think,   it 
were  rash,  presumptuous  in  the  extreme,  for  one  who  had 
received  such  severe  castigation  to  attempt  to  rejoin.  Beside, 
there  are  not  wanting  indications  of  the  danger,  which  he  is 


6  PREFACE. 

apt  to  incur  who  happens  to  be  singly  brought  in  conflict 
with  one  whose  dicta  are  laws,  and  who  by  reason  of  his 
position  wields  an  amount  of  influence  enough  to  overpower, 
or  at  least  to  terrify. 

The  Author  of  the  following  analysis,  freely  confesses, 
that  all  these  things  have  been  present  to  his  thoughts,  and 
that  he  has  felt  the  fearful  odds,  with  which  he  ventures  to 
contest  the  opinions  of  one,  who  so  long  has  contributed  to 
mould  the  minds,  to  form  the  taste,  to  direct  the  studies, 
and  to  stamp  his  own  character  on  so  large  a  portion  of  the 
educated  and  effective  Evangelical  Ministry  in  these  United 
States.  But  truth  has  claims,  superior  to  all  those  of  per- 
sonal consideration ;  and  it  has  demanded  a  defence  against 
"  the  Strictures"  recently  published  by  Professor  Stuart, 
on  the  Author's  work  entitled  "  Dissertations  on  the  Pro- 
phecies relative  to  the  Second  Coming  of  Jesus  Christ."  So 
far  as  the  personal  interests  of  the  Author  are  concerned, 
they  would  readily  have  been  confided  to  the  care  of  Provi- 
dence; but  being  set  for  the  defence  of  the  Gospel,  it  is  not 
left  optional  with  him  to  remain  silent.  The  reader  will 
judge  whether  Prof.  S.,  or  the  Author  of  the  Dissertations, 
adheres  most  closely  and  implicitly  to  the  sure  and  unerring 
word  of  God. 

The  spirit  and  style  of  "  the  Strictures,"  have  determined 
the  method  of  reply.  Violence  was  attempted  ;  and  it  can- 
not be  repelled  without  indications  of  resentment.  Resent- 
ment is  very  different  from  vindictiveness ;  and  under  certain 
circumstances  is  imperiously  demanded.  For  the  perfect 
freedom  of  speech,  and  liberty  assumed  in  canvassing  the 


I 


PREFACE.  W 

arguments  of  Prof.  S.,  as  well  as  in  expressing  his  convic- 
tions and  views,  alike  of  the  truth  in  general,  and  of  the 
logic  and  language  of  his  censor,  the  Author  has  no  apo- 
logy to  make.  To  Prof.  S.  as  a  brother  and  Christian 
minister,  and  biblical  professor,  he  cheerfully  concedes^  and 
renders  all  the  respect,  that  may  be  due.  Nor  does  he  har- 
bour one  thought  or  feeling,  inconsistent  with  Christian  and 
social  good  will,  or  that  would  embarrass  in  personal  inter- 
course with  him. 

He  regrets  the  haste  with  which  Prof  S.  has  written,  and 
his  evident  determination  to  turn  to  ridicule,  and  to  consign 
to  contempt  the  views  he  undertakes  to  censure.  He  would 
have  much  preferred,  a  calm,  grave,  kind,  and  courteous 
investigation  and  interchange  of  thought.  It  was  in  this 
spirit  and  temper  that  the  Author  of  the  Dissertations  ex- 
pressed, his  dissent  from  some  of  Prof  S.'s  positions,  and 
made  assertions  touching  the  exegetical  views  dropped  in 
the  *'  Hints,"  which  he  had  hoped  he  would  have  met  and 
shown  his  ability  to  maintain. 

Prof  S.  evidently  felt  himself  challenged ;  and  having 
chosen  his  weapons,  it  has  not  been  left  wholly  optional 
with  the  Author  of  the  following  pages,  in  what  manner  to 
reply.  Whatever  of  severity  there  may  be  thought  to  be  in 
the  reply,  the  reader  is  assured  that  it  has  been  induced  by 
no  personal  pique  or  ill-will,  but  by  the  full  consciousness 
of  there  being  nothing,  either  in  disparity  of  age  or  station, 
in  mutual  relations  to  each  other,  and  to  the  church  of  God, 
or  in  reciprocal  obligations,  to  impose  any  other  restraint 
than  courtesy  and  Christianity  dictate  upon  the  freedom  of 


8  PREFACE. 

speech, — in  expressing  dissent  from  his  views, — in  exposing 
the  falsity  of  his  charges,  and  the  fallacy  of  his  reasonings, — 
and  in  maintaining  and  vindicating  what  the  Author  be- 
lieves,— more  firmly  than  ever,  after  a  careful  analysis  of 
the  Strictures, — to  be^  the  plain  and  simple  truth  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures. 

Detroit,  Nov,  29,  1842. 


,^i. 


,,  V-   of  TDK     ' 


REPLY  TO  THE  "  STRICTURES  "  OF  PROFES- 
SOR STUART. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

A  plain  unsophisticated  reader,  after  having  quoted  the 
following  words  of  Professor  Stuart,  viz.  "  I  have  read 
Mr.  D's  work  with  all  the  attention  which  time  has  permit- 
ted,'^^ remarked,  "  this  is  but  a  poor  way  of  bespeaking 
confidence,  and  plainly  intimates  his  conviction,  that  a  mere 
casual  attention  to  the  subject  is  all  which  he  need  give." 
Whether  the  remark  be  true  or  false  will  appear  in  the 
sequel. 

In  undertaking  a  defence  of  myself,  I  have  no  apologies 
to  make,  nor  complimentary  bows  with  which  to  approach 
and  to  introduce  myself  to  the  learned  professor.  I  have' 
ever  despised  flattery.  As  a  plain  man,  I  speak  what  I 
believe  to  be  the  truth,  with  all  plainness,  even  though  it 
may  at  times  be  disagreeable.  This  one  thing,  however, 
I  wish  to  be  distinctly  known, — that  I  neither  regard 
Professor  S.  as  a  scholar  and  biblical  critic  to  be  infallible, 
nor  concede  to  him  any  right,  by  his  authority,  or  ipse  dix- 
it, as  "  PROFESSOR,  in  Andover  Theological  Seminary," — 
whether  sole,  associated,  of  all  science  and  literature,  or 
of  any  particular  branch,  I  cannot  tell  from  the  title  he 
appends  to  his  name — to  sit  in  judgement  as  umpire  in 
criticism,  theology,  philology,  prophetical  interpretation 
2 


1/ 


^ 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

or  scriptural  exposition.  By  the  force  and  conclusiveness 
of  arguments  must  his  opinions,  as  well  as  any  other  man's, 
be  established. 

I  feel  somewhat  reluctant  to  judge  of  his  spirit  and  in- 
tention ;  yet  cannot  help  remarking,  that,  from  the  very 
commencement  to  the  close  of  his  "  Strictures,"  and  by 
the  very  modest  title  he  has  given  his  own  production, 
the  impression  has  been  made,  that  he  felt  the  dignity  of 
the  professor  to  have  been  somewhat  offended  and  design- 
ed to  castigate  the  bold  or  impudent  striplhig,*  that  dar- 
ed to  call  his  opinions  in  question.  It  is  perhaps  natural, 
or  at  least  reasonable  to  expect,  that  one,  who  has  so  long 
sat  in  "  Moses'  seat,"  and  been  accounted  by  multitudes 
an  Oracle  in  biblical  matters,  should  have  been  startled  at 
the  distant  sound  of  dissent  from,  or  condemnation  of, 
some  of 'his  favorite  positions.  I  am  not  therefore  sur- 
prised, nor  have  I  any  ground  to  complain,  that  Prof.  S. 
should  have  felt  himself  urgently  called  to  notice  the 
work  which  has  received  his  "  Strictures." 

In  reference  to  his  views, — expressed  in  his  "  Hints  on 
the  interpretation  of  prophecy" — relative  to  the  slaying  of 
the  two  witnesses,  and  their  lying  dead  in  the  streets  of 
Jerusalem,  I  had  stated, — that  he  had  assumed  as  his 
guide,  in  the  exposition  of  the  Apocalypse,  certain  posi- 
tions which  had  not  been  proved, — and  that  he  had  assert- 
ed other  things  to  be  so  very  obvious  as  not  well  to  be 
denied,  which,  however,  have  actually  been  denied^  and  the 
denial  supported  by  argument^  of  both  which  facts  1  did  not 
think  it  probable  that  he  was  ignorant.     I  had  also  stated, 

*  A  malignant  effusion,  signed  E.,  in  a  late  political  gazette, 
published  in  Newark,  N.  J.,  while  it  breathes  the  adoration  of 
some  poor  satellite  for  the  "  old  giants  in  philology  and  sacred 
lore,"  and  denominates  the  author  of  the  Dissertations  "  a  youth- 
ful aspirant,"  advising  him  to  tarry  at  Judea  till  his  beard  be 
grown,  betrays  alike  the  ignorance,  servility  and  malignity  of 
the  writer. 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

that  his  explanation,  of  the  predictions  relative  to  the  two 
witnesses  and  the  septimo-octavo  head  of  the  apocalyptic 
beast,  especially  of  the  latter,  afforded  a  striking  specimen 
of  prophecy  being  rendered  so  unlike  the  fulfillment  as  to 
make  it  difficult  to  say,  whether  it  is  not  even  more  ridic- 
ulous, than  vague  and  fanciful.  See  "  Dissertations  on 
the  prophecies,"  pp.  395,  409.  These  things  I  confess 
demanded  his  attention.  I  intended  and  hoped,  that  my 
averments  here,  would  make  him  feel  the  necessity  of 
fortifying  his  exegesis  with  other  considerations  than  he 
had  adduced,— with  arguments  j^roriw^y  it  to  be  correct, 
rather  than  suppositions  that  "  John  might  describe"  things 
in  this  or  any  other  way. — It  is  the  business  of  an  expos- 
itor to  show  what  the  writer  actually  did  mean,  and  not 
what  he  might  mean.  I  felt  that  Prof.  S.  here  was  great- 
ly in  fault ;  and  cannot  resist  the  impression,  that  he  has 
actually  inverted  the  true  order  to  be  pursued,  by  doing 
what  he  has  virtually  but  falsely  charged  against  me,  viz. 
theorizing  or  assigning  a  j^ossift/e  meaning,  and  then  search- 
ing for  arguments  to  make  it  appear  plausible,  instead  of 
analysing  both  the  language,  and  the  entire  context,  and, 
irrespective  of  all  theories  and  preconceived  notions,  en- 
deavoring to  ascertain  what  the  writer  did  mean.  I  shall 
recur  presently,  and  more  particularly,  to  his  mode  of  in- 
terpretation. My  object  in  adverting  to  it  now,  is  mere- 
ly to  bespeak  the  reader's  candid  attention,  while  I  in- 
quire, whether  the  assertions  above  stated,  call  for  and 
justify,  the  tone  and  spirit,  betrayed  in  the  Strictures — 
a  few  things  charac^ewsti(^T^f  wHeh  4  shall  designate. 


^      o 


CHAPTER  II. 


u 


THE  TONE  AND  SPIRIT  OF  THE  "STRICTURES/'' 

1.  He  has  sat  in  judgment  on  what  he  supposes  to  have 
been  my  mode  of  exposition,  and  my  means  of  access  to 
the  writings  of  the  fathers  ;  which  latter,  whether  true 
or  false,  does  not  affect  the  merits  of  the  subject,  but  be- 
trays a  willingness,  if  not  a  desire,  to  make  the  impression, 
that  I  have  been  indebted  entirely  to  the  labors  of  "  fa- 
vorite authors."  "He  has  read,"  says  he  "  somewhat 
extensively,  the  more  recent  works  of  those  who  have 
assayed  to  defend,"  what  he  calls  "  the  theory"  of  "a 
personal,  actual,  and  visible  descent  of  Christ  and  the  glo- 
rified saints  to  earth,  and  of  their  ecclesiastico-political  do- 
minion here." 

What  he  means  by  "  more  recent,"  I  cannot  say,  but 
presume  he  will  not  class  Mede  and  Daubeny,  Sir  Isaac 
and  Bishop  Newton  among  the  more  recent  writers,  who 
believed  that  the  true  interpretation  of  the  prophetical 
Scriptures,  sanctioned  the  expectation  of  Christ's  person- 
al visible  coming.  Why  has  he  limited  the  range  of  my 
reading .''  and  chosen  to  insinuate,  that  I  have  quoted  wri- 
ters I  have  not  read.''  To  say  the  very  least  this  is 
an  uncourteous  attempt  at  the  very  commencement  of  his 
strictures,  to  prejudice  the  minds  of  his  readers,  by  person- 
al detractory  insinuations.  This  attempt  he  has  support- 
ed by  representing  me  as  bringing  forward  a  "  theory" 
and  laboring  to  prove  it,  by  the  "  more  recent  works  of 
those  who  have  assayed  to  defend  it." 

In  so  saying,  he  has  entirely  mistated  the  whole  object, 
design,  and  character,  of  my  work.  I  have  brought  for- 
ward NO  THEORY  at  all ;  .but  have  undertaken  to  institute 


TONE  AND  SPIRIT  OF  THE 


13 


an  inquiry  and  an  investigation,  as  to  what  is  the  true  and 
proper  meaning  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  when  they  speak  of 
the  coining  of  Christ  and  of  the  dominion  of  the  saints  ?  It 
is  wholly  a  question  of  fact,  whether  the  application  of 
correct  and  admitted  principles  of  interpretation  will  not 
bring  out,  as  their  only  true  and  proper  meaning,  the  idea 
of  Christ's  personal  visible  coming  with  his  glorified  saints 
before  the  Millennium  ?  I  have  just  as  good  a  right  to 
call  his  views  a  theory  as  he  has  mine ;  yea,  much  better, 
since  he  brings  them  with  him  to  the  Bible,  confessedly 
preconceived  ideas — and  seeks  to  make  its  language  sup- 
port them.  I  have  not  brought  any  preconceived  views 
to  the  Bible,  but  have  gone  to  the  Bible  to  learn  what  it 
means,  in  the  language  which  it  holds  on  this  subject.  I 
entertained  once,  in  common  with  Professor  S.,  the  views 
of  the  millennium  which  he  himself  has  given,  only  with 
this  exception,  that  I  did  not  claim  to  pass  50  much  to  the 
account  oi '^  poetry^"*  as  he  has  done.  See  Hints,  p.  142, 
1st  ed.  But  I  have  been  forced,  after  a  long  and  careful 
study  of  the  scriptures,  as  well  "  in  the  original"  as  in  our 
English  text,  to  abandon  them,  because  untenable  on  Er- 
nesti's  principles  of  interpretation,  now  generally  admitted 
to  be  correct.  This  does  not  look  so  much  like  theoriz- 
ing as  if  I  had  done  what  Prof.  S.  has,  to  use  his  own 
term,  first  assigned  a  "  supposed"  meaning,  and  then  un- 
dertaken to  support  it.  See  Hints,  p.  122.  Whatever 
prejudice  therefore,  he  may  have  sought  to  excite  against 
me,  or  odium  against  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  personal  vis- 
ible premillenial  coming,  by  calling  it  a  theory,  he  has  on- 
ly betrayed,  how  loosely  he  expresses  himself.  While  he 
has  failed  to  fasten  that  convenient  charge  of  speculation 
and  theorizing  on  me,  his  own  language  proves  himself  to 
be  much  more  obnoxious  to  it. 

2.  He  has  distinctly  and  formally  charged  me  with  neg- 
lecting the  study  of  the  original  scriptures,  and  insinuated 
2* 


14 


TONE  AND  SPIRIT  OF 


something  bordering  on  plagiarism, — another  uncourteous 
attempt  to  weaken  his  adversary  by  exciting  prejudice 
against  him,  "  He  has"  says  he  "  however,  advanced  but 
little  which  is  really  new,  and  evidently  depemis,  for  most 
of  his  appeals  to  the  Christian  fathers  and  other  writ- 
ings (?)  (rather  solecistical)  of  somewhat  remote  origin, 
on  the  extracts  which  he  finds  in  some  of  his  favorite  au- 
thors. If  the  time  which  he  has  expended  in  such  a  pur- 
suit, had  been  spent  in  direct  study  of  the  original  scrip- 
tures, he  would  have  shunned  many  an  error,  which  he 
has  now  committed,  and  in  all  probability  he  would  have 
greatly  mollified  the  incongruities  in  his  work,  which  now 
abound  to  such  a  degree,  that  any  one  who  reads  him  (?) 
through  carefully^  finds  himself  at  length  much  more  prone 
to  be  surprised  and  astonished  than  to  become  offended." 
That  certainly  is  not  the  professor,  as  his  own  confessedly 
hurried  perusal  oi  the  bookj  (the  aw/Aor  of  the  book  he  has 
never  read)  and  the  severity  of  his  attempted  castigation 
prove. 

Were  I  disposed  to  retaliate,  I  too  might  insinuate 
and  quote  various  rumors  about  Gesenius  and  other  "  fa- 
vorite authors"  of  his,  for  "  extracts"  not  acknowledged, 
but  I  leave  such  matters  with  that  noted  lady  whose  word 
is  not  often  entitled  to  credit,  regretting  that  his  want  of 
courtesy  here,  renders  me  apparently  uncourteous  in  re- 
pelling his  coarse  insinuations.  Wholesale  charges  of  er- 
ror, and  incongruities,  without  specification^  and  to  a  de- 
gree even  of  surprise,  astonishment,  and  "  ad  nausaum," 
might  justify  a  little  resentment,  but  I  wish  to  cherish  all 
possible  bonhomie  even  in  quoting  the  trite  remark  that 
"  they  who  live  in  glass  houses  should  take  care  how  they 
throw  stones."  Seneca's  advice  somewhat  paraphrased  is 
applicable  here,  as  the  sequel  may  show 
Alium  silere  quod  voles,  primus  sile. 
Be  silent  and  do  not  assail 
Where  foes  of  you  may  tell  the  tale. 


THE  "  STRICTURES."  15 

WTiat  does  Prof.  S.  know  about  the  time  I  have  or  have 
not  "  spent  in  the  direct  study  of  the  original  scriptures  ?" 
And  where  is  the  modesty  in  supporting  this  suppositi- 
tious charge  of  neglect  in  this  matter,  by  wholesale  alle- 
gations of  errors,  which,  but  for  this  neglect,  he  some- 
what condescendingly  says,  1  most  probably  would  have 
shunned,  thus  arrogating  to  himself,  special  praise  and 
protection  ? — particularly,  when  he  either  knows,  or  ought 
to  know,  that  some  Hebrew  and  Greek  scholars,  who  can 
lay  as  lofty  claims  to  erudition  and  knowledge  of  the  ori- 
ginal scriptures,  as  he  can  himself,  such  a^Mede  and 
Daubeny,  have  advanced  the  very  same  ideas  wnich  I  have 
only  historically  stated  in  the  general  outline  of  Millenna- 
rian  vi^ws,  but  which  he  has  chosen  to  set  forth  and  rep- 
rimand as  my  inconsistencies  ? 

Quod  non  vetat  lex,  hoc  vetat  fieri  pudoT. 

That  which  the  law  stoops  not  to  blame 
Should  not  be  done  from  very  shame. 

3.  He  has  flagrantly  misrepresented  me,  and  done  me 
great  injustice,  by  his  too  obvious  attempt  to  fortify  him- 
self behind  the  clerical  ^  esprit  du  corps j"*  as  though  I  had 
become  the  accuser  of  my  brethren,  and  charged  thern 
with  hypocrisy,  &c.  so  contrary  to  what  he  says  he  always 
heard  to  be  my  temper.  "  It  has  not  been  itiy  lot"  he 
says,  '^  to  have  any  considerable  personal  acquaintance 
with  Mr.  Duffield.  But  I  have  always  heard  him  spok- 
en of,  by  rny  brethren  in  the  ministry,  as  a  man  of  kind 
and  gentle  spirit,  uniting  the  christian  and  the  gentleman. 
It  was  a  matter  of  surprise  to  me  therefore,  when  I  found 
him  speaking  of  those  who  hesitate  about  devoting  their 
time  to  the  study  of  what  they  deem  to  be  obscure  prophecies., 
as  *  having  reason  to  fear,  that  the  charge  and  censure  of 
the  Saviour  for  hypocrisy  may  be  applicable'  to  them,  and 
intimating,  that  *  they ,  are  not  in  earnest  about  heavenly 


16  TONE  AND  SPIRIT  OF 

things.'  p.  23.  He  does  not  mean  here  to  characterize 
mere  scoffers  at  all  divine  truth,  but  he  means  ^uch  of  his 
brethren  as  do  not  agree  ivilh  him,  in  zeal  for  the  study  of 
what  they  deem  prophecy  too  difficult  for  them  to  under' 
stand.''^     App.  p.  154. 

Now,  with  all  due  respect,  as  becomes  "the  christian  and 
the  gentlemen,"  I  beg  leave  to  say,  I  have  done  no  such 
thing.  This  is  his  version  of  the  matter :  his  construc- 
tive charge.  I  refer  any  and  every  candid  reader  to  the 
context  which  he  thus  interprets,  and  confidently  antici^ 
pate  acqujiipl  from  this  grievous  accusation.  The  reader 
will  find,  by  turning  back  to  p.  18  of  the  Dissertations, 
that  I  am  endeavouring  to  answer  a  very  common  objec- 
tion against  the  study  of  "  unfulfilled  prophecies,  in  gener- 
al, and  not  this  or  the  other  special  prediction,  which 
brethren  may  think  "  too  Sifficult  for  them  to  understand." 
The  objection  is,  "  that  while  the  study  of  the  prophecies 
already  fulfilled  may  be  proper  and  useful,  that  of  the  proph- 
ecies unfulfilled  is  bo'h  useless  and  dangerous ^  Of  course 
the  remarks  apply  to  none  other  but  this  one  particular 
class  of  persons  ;  I  do  not  say  whether  clerical  or  lay,  but 
mean  both  as  the  language  shows.  For  the  objection  is 
offered  alike  by  both,  occasionally.  I  have  also  quoted 
the  language  of  one,  whether  clerical  or  lay  I  know  not, 
but  one  who  belongs  to  the  Editoral  corps,  a  class  of  per- 
sons that  do  virtually  contribute,  'and  some  of  them  claim 
a  right,  to  form  and  controul  public  opinion  ;  and  I  have 
said,  that  such  language,  especially  the  spirit  of  the  ob- 
jection quoted,  deserves  reproof,  for  reasons  stated  and 
drawn  directly  from  the  word  of  God,  setting  forth,  first 
the  divine  obligation,  imposed  on  us  all,  to  study  unfulfil- 
led as  well  as  fulfilled  prophecy,  and  next  its  indispensa- 
ble necessity  in  order  rightly  to  understand  the  promises 
of  God  given  for  our  support  and  consolation. 

Having  thus  stated  the  objection,  and  quoted  the  Ian- 


THE  "  STRICTURES."  17 

guage  of  the  Editor  of  the  Boston  Recorder, — who  he  is  I 
know  not, — in  proof  that  it  is  a  real  objection  and  not  a 
man  of  straw, — and  having  shewn  its  dangerous  tendency, 
and  utter  fallacy,  when  brought  to  the  test  of  God's  word, 
I  have  asked,  "  Now,  after  all  this,  what  shall  we  think  of 
those  who  will  tell  us  unfulfilled  prophecy  needs  not  to 
be  studied — is  of  no  use,  but  dangerous— till  the  events  have 
fulfilled  them  ?  Assuredly  such  instructors  deserve  reproof, 
and  to  be  sent  back  to  their  Bibles,  themselves  to  study, 
more  carefully,  lest  they  should  mislead  others.     They 
have  reason  to  fear  that  the  charge,  and  censure  of  the 
Saviour,  for  hypocrisy  may  be  applicable ;"  and  in  pooof 
of  this  statement,  I  have   shown  that  it  was  the  very  cir- 
cumstances  of  the    Pharisees'    neglecting  prophecy,   on 
which   the   Saviour   founded    his   charge   of   hypocrisy 
against  them.     My  remarks  apply  wholly  to  the  persons 
whom  I  have  described,  and  particularly  quoted,  not  to 
those  whom  Professor  S.  has  spen  fit  to  describe  for  me,^ 
and  tell  the  world  I   mean.     By  no  law  of  interpretation 
has  he  the  right  to  put  on  my  language  the  construction 
he  has,  and  to  work  it  up  into  an  attack  upon  "  many  an 
honest  and  excellent  minister ^^^  who  does  not  agree  with 
(me)  in  zeal  for  the  study  of  what  they  deem  prophecy 
too  difficult  for  them   to  understand."     I  have    admitted, 
that  some  unfulfilled  prophecies  are  difficult  to  be  under- 
stood, but  affirmed,  that  that  is  no  reason  why  they  should 
not  be  studied,  much  less   why  all  unfulfilled  prophecy 
should  be  neglected. 

My  remarks  apply  only  to  those  who  fall  in  the  latter 
class,  whether  ministers,  editors,  laymen,  or  professors.  If 
Prof.  S.  interprets  the  language  of  his  Bible,  as  he  has 
done  mine,  he  certainly  needs  to  be  sent  back  to  learn  some 
of  the  first  principles  of  "  Hermeneutics."  What  I  have 
asserted  from  p.  18  to  23,  I  now  assert  again,  without  the 
least  fear  of  Prof.  S.'s  attempt  to  rob  me  of  any  reputation 


18  .        TONE  AND  SPIRIT  OF 

I  may  have  had  for  a  kind  and  gentle  spirit :  remarking 
only,  that  by  the  very  same  rule  of  interpretation,  which 
has  helped  him  to  excoriate  this  grievous  charge  against 
me,  he  may  stamp  the  charge,  of  being  an  accuser  and  de- 
nunciator, agajnst  any  and  every  minister  of  the  gospel, 
who  will  prove  and  enforce  the  precepts  of  the  gospel  in 
their  plain  and  obvious  import.  I  must  say,  that  there  is 
a  weakness  in  this  attempt  so  like  the  subterfuges  and  cry 
of  men  of  the  world,  which  ill  comports  with  my  previous 
ideas  of  Prof  S's.  courtesy,  and  "  Hermeneutics  "  both. 
Prof  S,  would  share  most  largely  in  the  (;ensure  and  con- 
demnation, he  seeks  to  dispense  to  me,  were  his  own  meth- 
od of  interpreting  language  and  construing  charges  appli- 
ed to  himself.  Besides  those  from  the  "  Strictures  "  that 
will  fall  under  notice,  I  refer  the  reader  to  passages  in  his 
Hints,  which  he  may  find  on  pp.  63,  127.  It  ill  becomes 
a  writer,  himself  so  sensorious  and  dogmatical,  to  make 
such  charges  ;  but  it  is  one  among  the  many  proofs  we 
meet,  of  the  readiness  of  men  to  accuse  others  of  what 
they  themselves  are  guilty. 

His  referenc'es  to  pages  71  and  265  of  the  Dissertations 
are  of  like  character.  I  challenge  him  to  produce  any 
thing  from  the  whole  book,  taken  in  its  proper  connection^ 
that  will  justify  such  charges,  and  such  a  resort  to  the 
argumentum  ad  invidiam  as  the  following,  "  At  one  time 
the  opponents  of  his  views  are  negligent  of  the  scriptures  ;  at 
another  they  are  prejudiced,  obstinate,  bent  upon  peculiar 
hypotheses,  and  swayed  by  their  own  sj'stem  ;  then  again 
they  are  unwilling  to  follow  the  simple  principles  of  in- 
terpretation ;  and  they  are  indifferent  about  the  glories  of 
Christ  and  the  saints.  Moreover,  some  of  them  are  led 
away  by  Platonic  and  other  philosophy  ;  and  others  par- 
ticularly the  author  of  Hints  on  the  Interpretation  of 
Prophecy  pp.  395,  409,  are  led  away  by  German  Theolo- 
gy.'^' App.  p.  155.     His  zeal  or  something  else  must  have 


THE  "  STRICTURES."  19 

greatly  affected  the  medium  of  his  vision,  before  he  would 
have  magnified  my  legitimate  objections  against  the  alle- 
gorizing or  spiritual  system  of  interpretation,  into  charges 
against  my  brethren  and  himself ;  or  conscience  must  have 
been  at  work, — one  of  the  two.  His  remarks  about  my 
being  exempt  from  any  "  charge  of  being  led  away  either 
by  Plato  or  the  Germans,"  I  accept  as  a  compliment,  not- 
withsjtanding  the  sneer,  which  they  were  designed  to  ex- 
press, cannot  be  concealed,  ill  becomes  him,  and  is  be- 
neath notice. 

What  I  have  specially  affirmed  of  his  explanations  of 
certain  prophecies,  I  shall  notice  in  another  place.  I  am 
truly  surprised  to  see  my  arguments  and  objections,  in  ref- 
erence to  a  system  of  interpretation^  construed  into  invidi- 
ous defamation  of  my  brethren,  which  "  blows  somewhat 
rude  and  violent  upoi^  the  very  ears  which  are  summoned 
to  listen  !!"  He  must  needs  have  the  power  of  Proteus 
that  can  transform  tilings  at  this  rate. 

Omnia  transformat  sese  in  miracula  serum. 

His  power  of  universal  transformatipn 
Is  marvellous  indeed  to  admiration. 


CHAPTER  III. 

HIS    SKETCH  OR  REVIEW  OF    THE    DISSERTATIONS. 

1.  He  represents  me  as  attempting, — through  150 
pages  of  a  work,  which  in  the  very  third  sentence  of  his 
"  Strictures,"  he  typographically  or  otherwise,  errs  in 
stating  "  contains  334  pages  12mo."  nearly  one  half  of 
the  whole  according  to  his  shewing, — "  to  establish  her- 
meneutical  principles ;  from  the  application  of  which  (I) 
expect  to  deduce  (my)  whole  theory  in  respect  of  times  fu- 
ture." p.  156.  I  notice  the  error  just  mentioned,  in  proof 
of  the  desultory  attention  he  must  have  given  either  to 
the  Dissertations,  or  the  proof  sheets  of  his  Strictures,  and 
how  happily  for  him  the  error  helps  to  give  force  to  his 
general  survey  of  the  book.  One  half  of  a  book  devoted 
to  establish  hermeneutical  principles  by  which  to  deduce 
a  theory  !  ! !  This  is  construction  with  a  vengeance.  I 
utterly  deny  his  allegation. 

The  impression  which  his  language  actually  makes,  and 
I  have  a  right  to  believe  it  was  designed  to  make,  is,  that 
I  have  labored,  through  a  long,  tedious,  and  unnecessary 
detail,  requiring  great  patience  to  read,  in  order  to  estab- 
lish some  new  or  peculiar  principles  of  interpretation,  by 
which  to  make  the  Bible  teach  a  preconceived  idea  of  the 
Millennium.  I  have  done  no  such  thing  :  and  isay  of 
Professor  Stuart,  that  if  he  had  given  all  the  attention 
which  time  would  permit  to  the  book,  he  has  not  given, 
either  time  or  attention,  sufficient  to  be  able  to  state  its 
object  or  its  argument.  I  have  advanced  no  new  princi- 
ples of  Hermeneutics  whatever :  but  have  brought  into 
view  two  different  systems  of  interpretation,  which  have 


HIS  SKETCH  OR  REVIEW  OF  THE  DISSERTATIONS.  Si 

obtained  and  exerted  an  influence  on  the  exposition  of 
Scripture,  and  specially  compared  and  contrasted  them.  I 
have  attempted  a  regular  analytical  investigation  of  the  im- 
port of  Scriptural  prophetical  language,  relative  to  the 
SECOND  COMING  OF  Jesus  Christ.  Prcviously,  and  indis- 
pensably necessary  to  that  investigation,  became  the  distinct 
apprehension  and  adjustment  of  the  true  principles  of  inter- 
pretation recognized  and  established  in  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves. Will  Professor  Stuart  object  to  this?  Why  then 
should  he  attempt  to  disparage  an  effort  made  in  a  work  in- 
tended for  all  classes  of  readers,  and  especially  for  those 
unacquainted  with  the  science  of  hermeneutics,  to  give  a  dis- 
tinct and  intelligible  idea  of  the  features,  principles,  and 
results,  of  two  very  different  systems  of  interpretation,  by 
which  divines  and  professors  have  conducted  their  exposi- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  ?  Must  no  one  entrench  on  what  he 
may  claim  to  be  his  province,  par  excellence^  as  biblical 
"  professor  in  Andover  Theological  Seminary  ?"  Has  an 
attempt  to  make  the  whole  subject  intelligible  to  the  com- 
mon reader — especially  when  the  original  form  of  the  work 
was  Lectures  prepared  for  a  popular  assembly — and  to  strip 
it  of  all  pedantic  technicalities,  been  rendered  altogether  un- 
necessary by  professor  Stuart's  class-book  for  his  students,  en- 
titled "  Elementary  Principles  of  Interpretation,"  translated 
from  the  Latin  of  Ernesti,  with  notes  of  his  own  and  ex- 
tracts from  others  1  If  he  thinks  so,  there  are  multitudes 
who  do  not. 

What  I  have  attempted,  in  four  chapters,  to  do,  is  to  ena- 
ble the  reader  to  understand  the  difference  between  the  two 
systems  designated,  and  to  decide  for  himself  which  shall  be 
adopted.  This  I  have  done,  first,  by  arguments  adduced, 
and,  in  the  next  place,  by  meeting  and  guarding  against  some 
common  misapprehensions  and  misrepresentations  as  to  what 
the  one  system,  in  contradistinction  from  the  other,  really  is. 
Professor  S.  may  think  that  twenty-five  pages  would  have 

3 


22  HIS    SKETCH  OR  REVIEW  OF 

sufficed  for  the  whole,  instead  of  115,  not  150  as  he  has 
said,  p.  157.  But  diffuse  in  his  style  of  writing  as  he  is 
himself,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  enough  to  enable  him 
to  understand,  either  my  language,  or  that  of  Ernesti,  which 
I  have  quoted.  Whether  the  fault  is  in  me,  or  in  the  pro- 
fessor, will  presently  appear. 

I  have  done  no  more  than  to  unfold  and  endeavor  to  esta- 
blish the  very  same  system  of  interpretation ^  which  Ernesti 
has  defined  and  advocated,  and  which  Professor  S.  has  him- 
self zealously  asserted  and  vindicated.  I  defy  him  to  pro- 
duce a  single  passage  from  the  whole  book,  which  will  au- 
thorize him  to  make  the  statement  he  has  done,  in  order  to 
produce  the  impression  he  evidently  designed  to  do,  that  I 
have  sought  to  establish  any  new  or  peculiar  hermeneutical 
principles  of  my  own,  by  which  I  expected  to  deduce  my 
whole  "  theory"  as  to  future  times.  A  writer  who  can  pre- 
fer charges  at  this  rate,  and  so  misstate  the  object  and  argu- 
ment of  an  author,  ought  to  be  very  careful  that  he  does  not 
himself  present  "  many  incongruities  of  representation," 
through  failure  "  to  distinguish  things  that  differ."  His  whole 
attempt  is  to  turn  into  derision  what  he  had  not  been  candid 
enough  to  state  distinctly  and  accurately — no  doubt  aware 
that  with  most  of  readers,  ridicule  has  more  force  than 
reason. 

Discit  enim  citius,  meminitque  libentiiis  illud, 
Quod  quis  deridet,  quam  quod  probat  et  veneratur. 

For  quickly  we  discern, 
With  ease  remember,  and  with  pleasure  learn, 
Whate'er  may  ridicule  and  laughter  move, 
Not  what  deserves  our  best  esteem  and  love. 

2.  He  has  made  a  false  issue,  and  put  up  a  man  of 
straw  of  his  own  creating,  which  he  sets  fire  to,  and  demo- 
lishes, with  most  wonderful  dexterity  and  self-complacency. 
"  His  grand  position,"  he  says  of  me,  "  is,  that  all  pro- 


THE    DISSERTATIONS.  23 

pJiecy  is  to  be  literally  interpreted."  The  reader  would 
suppose  that  I  actually  advanced  a  position,  in  these  terms  ; 
and  I  cannot  resist  the  impression,  that  he  meant  it  should 
BE  so  UNDERSTOOD,  I  defy  him  to  produce  any  passage 
showing  that  I  have  advanced  such  a  bold  and  unqualified 
proposition,  or  that  I  have,  directly  or  indirectly,  afforded 
just  occasion,  for  him  or  any  one  else,  so  to  state,  what  he 
calls,  my  grand  position.  He  does  indeed  quote,  in  a  sup- 
pressed and  garbled  form,  what  I  have  said,  defining  the 
general  system,  not  of  my  excogitation,  but  long  known  in 
the  church,  and  denominated  literal  in  contradistinction 
ixom  the  mystic  ox  spiritual.  ^^  Hy  literal  "  he  means,  (as 
he  avers,  p.  34,)  "  that  system  which  assumes  the  liter ality  or 
historical  reality ^  of  the  events  predicted."  He  means  that 
the  reader  shall  understand,  that  I,  as  well  as  himself,  re- 
garded this  last  proposition  as  identical,  with  what  he  had 
stated  my  *'  grand  position"  to  be,  and  when  he  says  that 
"  more  than  sixty  pages  are  occupied  with  illustrating  and 
establishing  this  position,"  he  errs  most  egregiously,  from 
the  fact.  The  two  propositions  are  not  identical,  and  canf 
not,  by  any  efforts  of  exegesis,  be  tortured  into  entire  resem- 
blance, 

I  might  here  leave  the  question  with  the  intelligent 
reader,  confident  that  he  will  never  identify  my  language, 
which  Prof.  S.  quotes,  with  his  statement  of  its  meaning. 
I  feel  that  I  should  but  insult  the  understanding  of  the 
reader,  were  I  to  attempt  to  show  the  difference  between 
*'  a  system  that  assumes  the  historical  reality  of  the  events 
predicted,"  and  ^^  ?i  position  \hdX  all  prophecy" — he  means, 
and  can  mean  nothing  else  than  the  language  in  which  all 
prophecy  is  delivered — "  is  to  be  literally  interpreted."  He 
must  be  incurably  blind  indeed,  that  cannot  see  the  radical, 
immutable,  eternal  difference,  in  the  very  nature  of  things^ 
between  a  position  and  a  system,  events  and  language.  But 
I  feel  also,  that  with  all  the  reputation  I  may  have  for  a  kind 


251  HIS    SKETCH  OR  REVIEW  OF 

and  gentle  spirit,  it  would  be  making  too  great  a  demand 
for  the  sacrifice  of  self-respect,  to  submit  to  such  a  version 
and  explanation  as  he  has  given,  of  what  I  have,  in  common 
with  very  many  writers,  styled  the  literal  system  of  interpre- 
tation, and  defined  and  explained  at  some  length.  Prof  S. 
is  obnoxious  to  severe  and  deserved  rebuke  for  the  part  he 
has  acted  here.  For  he  has  not  only  attempted  to  confound 
things  essentially  different,  notwithstanding  he  so  rightfully, 
but  nevertheless  magisterially,  talks  about  and  demands, 
yea,  insists,  that  I  must  be  "  held  to  perspicuity  and 
accuracy  in  the  didactic  part  of  (my)  book ;"  but  he  has  ac- 
tually, and  deliberately,  twice  stopped  short,  in  the  midst  of 
the  same  sentence,  and  withheld  from  the  reader,  an  essen- 
tial idea  in  the  definition  or  description  which  I  have  given 
of  the  literal  si/stem  of  interpretation.  Pp.  156,  157. 

My  language  is,  "  by  the  literal  we  understand  that 
system  which  assumes  the  literality,  or  historical  reality, 
of  the  events  predicted,  and  resorts  to  the  grammatical  in- 
terpretation of  the  language  of  prophecy,  to  determine  its 
meaning."  He  may  contend  with  whom  he  pleases,  in  op- 
position to  the  position  he  has  attributed  to  me,  and  fight 
with  all  the  chivalry  of  Sancho  Panza  against  the  wind- 
mill, but  none  of  his  thrusts  or  darts  reach  me.  It  is  the 
creature  of  his  own  brain,  and  none  of  my  positions,  against 
which  he  directs  his  weapons. 

In  the  sixty  pages  of  which  he  speaks,  I  have  quoted 
Ernesti  frequently,  and  at  great  length,  Dodwell,  Vitringa, 
&/C.,  in  illustration  and  explanation  of  the  system  of  inter- 
pretation to  be  adopted,  and  from  which  he  will  not  himself 
dare  to  dissent ;  and  having  done  so,  in  six  not  sixty  pages, 
I  have  devoted  the  balance  of  the  sixty,  to  four  distinct,  in- 
dependent, and  extended  arguments,  proving  it  to  be  the 
correct  system,  in  doing  which,  I  have  even  quoted  Pro- 
fessor S.  himself  When  therefore  he  mirthfully  says, 
"  Often  in  reading  them  I  have  been  constrained  to  stop 


THE   DISSERTATION».\\     .  *    "^    ^  ^  "^  flU^  tp  ■ 

and  inquire,  Does  the  author  mean  really  to^^afct/'^ljBn,  thai?  h. , 
all  the  language  of  prophecy  is  to  be  literally  interpreted?*  J^ 
Most  of  his  remarks  led  me,  against  my  will,  to  think  that 
such  must  eventually  be  his  position.  More  than  once  I  be- 
gan seriously  to  ask  :  And  has  it  come  to  this  now  that  we 
are  to  make  a  beginning,  with  the  very  first  of  all  the  pro- 
phecies in  the  Bible,  and  find  out,  by  a  literal  interpre- 
tation, what  is  the  meaning  of  the  prediction  :  "  The  seed  of 
the  woman  shall  bruise  the  serpent's  head?"  I  say,  therefore, 
that  when  he  thus  speaks,  I  will  not  remark  on  the  unseemly 
entendre  in  the  words  italicised,  nor  even  declare  what  I 
think  of  his  interrogations,  for  I  perceive,  that  he  literally 
thinks  he  is  inflicting  severe  blows  on  me ;  but  I  refer  him 
to  pages  100  and  101  of  the  Dissertations,  where,  if  he  had 
read  with  ordinary  attention,  he  might  have  learned,  that  he 
was  fighting  against  a  man  of  straw  and  not  against  me, — 
and  where  too,  he  will  find  a  portrait  drawn,  of  a  certain 
class  of  spiritual  interpreters,  which  will  exhibit  his  own 
image  and  enable  me  to  return  his  compliment. 

Mutato  nomine,  de  te 

Fabula  narratur. 

Change  but  the  name,  of  thee  the  tale  is  told. 

3.  He  has  indulged  very  fi-eely  in  certain  hypercriticisms, 
on  my  language,  which  deserve  but  a  moment's  attention. 
Having  disproved  his  own  allegations,  and  proved  himself  to 
have  misrepresented  and  distorted  my  language,  by  acknow- 
ledging that  I  have  produced  "  nothing  but  what  is  to  be 
found  in  the  usual  principles  of  hermeneutics,"  he  adds  : 
"  But  it  must  be  confessed  still,  that  he  has  here  produced, 
in  addition  to  these,  some  things  which  he  may  rightfully 
claim  as  his  own.  What  sort  of  language  the  alphabetical 
is,  in  distinction  from  and  contrasted  with,  the  other  kinds 
named  by  him,  I  have  not  been  able  to  make  out,  by  any 
thing  which  he  has  said."  App.  p.  156,  157.  His  object  is 
to  sneer  at  the  word  alphabetical,  and  to  tell  the  world,  as 


2& 


HIS   SKETCH  OR  REVIEW  OF 


he  evidently  thinks,  that  it  is  "  a  novelty  of  (my)  own."  In 
so  saying  and  meaning  he  has  only  displayed  his  own  igno- 
rance. I  have  no  apology  to  make  for  this  charge,  since 
truth  requires  me  to  speak  plainly ;  I  am  not  the  first  who 
has  used  the  word  alphabetical  to  designate  the  literal  or 
plain  style  of  speech  or  language,  in  contradistinction 
from  that  which  is  symbolical  and  figurative,  just  as  the 
style  of  writing  in  alphabetical  letters  stands  opposed  td' 
pictorial  and  hieroglyphical  characters.  More  than  half  a 
century  since,  Johnson  in  his  exposition  of  the  Apocalypse 
thus  made  use  of  it ;  and  his  clear  discriminating  mind  and 
profound  judgment  as  an  expositor  entitle  him  to  equal  re- 
spect with  Prof.  S.  Other  writers  too  have  employed  it  in 
this  sense.  But  even,  if  I  had  been  the  first  to  use  it,  as  he 
verily  but  ignorantly  believes,  I  have  so  distinctly  and  accu- 
rately defined  my  meaning,  that  I  am  utterly  amazed  at  his 
professions  of  inability  to  apprehend  it.  I  have  said,  "  Al- 
phabetical language  is  the  plain  ordinary  style  of  speech, 
which  men  employ  to  state  or  to  set  forth  simple  matters  of 
history,  and  unemhellishedhy  figurative  expressions J^  I  have 
also  referred  to  examples  in  the  Apocalypse,  of  this  style  of 
language,  and  quoted  Ernesti's  explanation  of  the  thing, 
though  he  does  not  use  the  term.  If  after  all  this  plainness 
and  precision  Prof.  S.  remains  dull  of  comprehension,  it  is 
not  my  fault ;  and  I  may  felicitate  myself  as  did  the  cele- 
brated Dr.  Mason  in  like  cases,  that  while  under  obligations 
to  speak  plainly  and  intelligibly,  I  am  under  none  to  pro- 
vide understanding. 

Professor  S.  says  that  tropical  language,  and  also  symboli- 
cal and  typical,  may  also  be  called  alphabetical,  and  so  they 
may,  using  the  term  in  a  generic  sense :  but  I  have  used  it 
in  a  specific  sense  to  denote  that  plain  style  of  speech  which 
is  wholly  devoid  of  any  figurative  embellishment  whatever. 
When  used  in  the  generic  sense,  it  is  in  contradistinction 
from  hieroglyphics,  which  are  writings,  inscriptions  or  pic- 
tures, and  the  diiference  is  as  distinct  as  between  language, 


THE    DISSERTATIONS.  ^' 

or  words  uttered  or  written  and  pictorial  or  hieroglyphical 
marks  or  signs.  Professor  S.  does  not  seem  to  have  noticed 
this  distinction  ;  but  has  employed  expressions,  which  I  have 
never,  to  my  recollection,  met  in  any  accurate  and  good 
writer,  who  has  treated  on  these  subjects.  He  says,  "  We 
may  easily  distinguish  between  language  alphabetical  and 
hieroglyphical.''  I  defy  him  to  do  it.  There  is  no  such 
thing  as  hieroglyphical  language.  There  are  marks,  signs, 
pictures,  inscriptions,  styles  of  writing,  that  are  hyeroglyphi- 
cal,  and  they  may  speak  to  the  eye  what  words  do  to  the 
ear.  They  may  be  deciphered  and  interpreted,  but  strictly 
and  properly  they  are  not  language,  or  they  cannot  be  ex- 
pressed by  appropriate  sounds  or  names,  nor  do  accurate 
writers  so  express  themselves. 

His  own  remarks  about  types,  which,  he  says  correctly, 
are  not  language,  but  things,  apply  to  hieroglyphics  with 
much  greater  force,  than  to  symbols  and  types.  He  at- 
tempts, by  calling  it  my  "  nomenclature,"  to  throw  odium 
on  me,  for  employing  such  expressions  as  symbolical  lan- 
guage, typical  language,  and  charges  me  with  "  many  incon- 
gruities of  representation  through  failure  to  distinguish  the 
things  that  differ."  I  have  not  invented  these  forms  of  ex- 
pression, so  as  to  entitle  them  to  be  designated  as  my  nomen- 
clature.  They  are  to  be  found  in  the  best  writers.  I  have 
given  no  occasion  for  him  to  make  the  following  remark,  as 
though  I  had  confounded  ''  things  that  differ,"  viz.  "  In  re- 
spect to  these  last  two  designations,  however,"  (he  means 
symbolical  and  typical  language,)  "  we  have  another  remark 
to  make,  which  is,  that  types  are  not  language,  but  things, 
symbol  is  not  language,  but  thing  J'  Any  tyro  knows  this. 
I  have  never  said  or  intimated  that  they  were.  Nor  do  the 
phrases  about  which  he  affects  so  much  fastidiousness  imply 
it.  I  have — in  common  with  "  more  recent,"  and  more  re- 
mote authors,  with  Daubuz  and  all  that  since  his  day  have 
treated  of  symbols  and  types — used  the  expressions  he  criti- 
cises, just  as  any  and  every  plain  reader  would  understand, 


3^  '  HIS    SKETCH  OR  REVIEW  OF 

viz.,  SYMBOLICAL  LANGUAGE  denoting  the  language  which 
designates  or  expresses  symbols,  or  "things  used  as  signs  or 
representatives  of  ideas  ;"  and  typical  language,  the  lan- 
guage which  designates  or  expresses  types,  or  those  things 
that  God  appointed,  and  to  which  he  gave  significance,  as 
shadows  or  representations  of  what  he  intended  to  be  made 
known.     In  view,  therefore,  of  these  criticisms  about  "  a 
little  inaccuracy  in  modes  of  expression,"  I  am  willing  to 
submit  it  to  every  candid  reader,  whether  the  Professor's 
admonition  about  "  perspicuity  and  accuracy,"  would  not  be 
much  more  appropriate  from  me  than  from  him. 
Sic  soepe  intereunt  aliis  meditantes  necem. 
So  those  who  deadly  hate  to  others  cherish, 
By  their  own  schemes  are  often  made  to  perish. 

4.  He  has,  disingenuously,  defined  my  language  to  suit 
his  own  purpose,  and  instead  of  the  plain,  popular,  ordina- 
ry sense  of  the  expressions,  and  in  which  he  could  not  but 
perceive  they  were  used,  has  given  them  a  high  philosophi- 
cal or  metaphysical  import.  He  seems  himself  to  question 
the  propriety  of  his  own  definition,  but  satisfies  himself  that 
it  is  possible  to  give  my  words  such  a  meaning,  and  then 
adopts  it,  as  the  crucible  into  which  he  will  cast  my  "  funda- 
mental position,"  as  he  calls,  and  erroneously  states  it,  and 
by  which  he  will  put  its  accuracy  to  the  test.  ^'A  historic 
realiti/,"  says  he,  "  is  something  (or  as  we  may  say),  any 
thing  which  takes  place,  or  has  an  actual  existence,  in  dis- 
tinction from  any  thing  which  is  merely  supposed  or  ima- 
ginary. Nay,  if  we  include  within  the  circle  of  the  world 
of  mind,  the  Divine  Being  and  angelic  intelligencies,  we 
may  well  say  that  there  are  more  historic  realities  belonging 
to  the  world  of  mind,  than  to  the  world  of  matter  ;  there  are 
more,  and  more  important  things,  historical  realities,  con- 
nected with  the  invisible  world,  than  with  the  visible  one." 
App.  p.  157,  158. 

This,  I  confess,  is  ingenious,  and  as  it  is  the  "  great  fun- 
damental principle,  on  which  every  thing  in  his  (strictures) 


THE    DISSERTATIONS.  St 

turns  and  depends,"  a  few  remarks  must  be  made  on  his 
statement  of  it.  I  deny,  however,  its  correctness,  and  in- 
sist that  it  will  not  stand  the  test  of  sound  criticism.  I  have 
no  need,  however,  for  a  crucible  of  my  own  invention,  nor 
to  resort  to  definitions  of  my  own,  philosophical,  metaphysi- 
cal, or  otherwise,  by  which  to  try  it.  I  appeal  to  the  Eng- 
lish Lexicographers,  and  the  uniform  use  of  language,  or  as 
Professor  Stuart  would  say,  the  usus  loquendi.  Historical, 
or  historic,  is  the  adjective  formed  from  the  noun  history, 
and  means  of  or  belonging  to  history.  I  write  for  plain 
readers,  and  must  insist  on  subjecting  the  language  of  the 
Professor  of  Sacred  Literature,  since  he  writes  in  English, 
to  the  English  standards,  by  which  to  judge  of  its  correct- 
ness. History  is  not  "  existence,"  either  simple  and  ab- 
solute, i.  e.  as  he  has  it,  "  actual^^  or  "  in  distinction  from 
any  thing  which  is  merely  supposed  or  imaginary . 

Professor  S.  will  not  find  a  solitary  quotation  in  Richard- 
son's English  Dictionary  in  which  the  word  is  used  in  the 
sense  he  gives  it,  viz.,  actual  existence,  simple  entity.  How 
would  the  plain  reader  stare  to  be  told  by  Professor  S.  that 
God  is  History,  the  angels  history,  the  planets,  stars,  suns, 
and  material  universe  history  ?  And  yet,  according  to  his 
metaphysical  definition  of  "historical  reality,"  they  are! 

Here,  doubtless,  he  will  say,  that  he  uses  my  own  words, 
and  that  I  am  responsible  for  the  absurdity,  not  he.  He 
evidently  thinks,  that  he  has  fairly  turned  the  argumentum 
ducens  in  absurdum,  against  me.  But  he  is  greatly  mistaken. 
I  have  nowhere  said  that  literality,  as  an  attribute  or 
feature  of  prophecy,  is  identical  or  synonymous  with  histori- 
cal reality,  in  his  sense,  that  is,  abstractly,  absolutely  speak- 
ing, as  simple  existence.  He  has  indeed  represented  me  to 
have  so  said.  But  when  I  have  defined  the  literal  system 
of  interpretation,  as  applied  to  prophecy,  and  said  that  it  as- 
sumes "  the  literality,"  &lc.,  I  have  explained  it,  in  what  he 
calls  "  the  epexegetical  clause,  designed  to  be  its  exponent 


8C^  HIS    SKETCH  OR  REVIEW  OF 

or  equivdent," — to  be  the  "  historical  reality  of  the  events 
predicted."  Why  did  Professor  S.  suppress  these  important 
and  essential  words,  and  represent  me  as  identifying  Uterali- 
ty  and  historical  reality  in  the  high  metaphysical  generali- 
zation, or,  to  speak  more  logically,  absolute  sense  '?  He 
has  done  it,  to  try  the  correctness  of  my  position  by  showing 
its  absurdity,  but  I  have  only  spoken  of  events  or  occur- 
rences, so  transpiring  as  to  be,  or  to  be  capable  of  being, 
made  matters  of  history,  in  the  common  and  proper  sense  of 
the  word,  that  is,  events  visibly  occurring  in  this  world,  or 
externally  manifesting  themselves.  Beyond  this  I  deny  that 
prophecy  takes  its  range  :  he  cannot  prove  the  contrary  ;  and 
it  is  a  position  of  essential  moment  to  be  apprehended  by 
every  faithful  interpreter  of  prophecy.  His  disingenuousness 
in  shifting  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  historical  reality,  and 
perverting  my  idea, — the  only  proper  idea  of  its  meaning, — 
I  shall  presently  declare.  But  I  must  first  attend,  a  little 
further,  to  the  true  meaning  of  the  word  history. 

It  does  not  denote  mere  science,  abstractly  considered, 
any  more  than  it  does  existence.  It  is  true  that  it  is  a  Greek 
word,  '^IffTOQLu,  which  lexicographers  derive  from  iaimg, 
science,  knowing  or  having  knowledge ;  from  iaauOai,  to 
know ;  but  as  it  has  been  adopted,  in  both  the  Latin  and 
English  languages,  it  means  the  knowledge  of  things  donCy 
of  deeds  or  facts,  also  the  tale  or  narration  of  them,  the  re- 
lation, the  record  of  them.  "  Historical  realities"  therefore 
are  the  real  events  of  history,  according  to  the  plain, 
obvious,  established,  authorized  use  of  language.  This  be- 
ing the  only  legitimate  meaning  of  the  expression, — and  that 
it  is  so,  I  appeal  to  Tyndall,  Bale,  Ralegh,  Usher,  Tillot- 
son,  Bates,  Gibbon,  Beloe,  Warburton  and  others,  whose 
authority  is  far  beyond  the  excogitated  and  novel  definition 
of  Prof  S. — the  answer  is  at  hand  and  obvious,  when  he 
asks,  **  How  shall  we  show,  then,  that  when  a  spiritual  ex 
egesis  (as  the  author  names  it)  is  given  to  any  particular 


THE    DISSERTATIONS.  31 

passage  of  Scripture,  that  (?)  it  does  not  as  truly  present  us 
with  a  historical  reality^  as  when  we  assign  to  it  a  meaning 
which  has  relation  to  external  and  visible  occurrences?" 
App.  p.  158.  That  answer  is,  that  matters,  simply  and  ex- 
clusively intellectual,  or  spiritual,  are  not  matters  of /a's^or- 
ical  record  at  all ;  nor  can  they  be.  They  may  indeed 
have  a  veritable  existence,  but  that  existence  can  only  be- 
come known  to  us  by  some  external,  sensible  manifestation. 
Beyond  such  manifestation  history  does  not  go.  God,  and 
the  angelical  intelligencies,  only  become  the  subjects  of 
history,  as  they,  in  some  external,  visible,  or  sensible  way, 
event  or  occurrence,  reveal  themselves.  It  is  an  abuse  of 
language  to  call  them  "  historical  realities,"  absolutely  inde- 
pendent, or  exclusive,  of  such  manifestations. 

The  example,  which  Prof  S.  quotes,  and  which  he  pro- 
nounces "  undeniable,"  does  not  help  him  out  of  his  meta- 
physical fog.  "  Jesus,"  says  he,  "  declared  to  Nicodemus 
that  except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom 
of  God."  "  Now  if  the  explanation,  which  Mr.  D.  gives  of 
his  great  principle  is  correct,  we  are  not  to  give  this  a 
spiritual  meaning,  but  a  literal  one.  He  cannot  take  refuge 
here,  in  any  thing  which  he  says  about  tropes,  or  symbols. 
There  must  be  a  historical  reality  (in  his  sense  of  the 
phrase)  in  these  words ;  and  this  reality  is  one  which  is 
of  a  visible  and  sensible  nature."  App.  p.  158.  Here  is  the 
proof  of  his  disingenuousness.  He  shows,  in  the  last  sen- 
tence just  quoted,  that  he  did  accurately  and  fully  appre- 
hend the  idea  I  intended  to  express  by  the  phrase  "  historical 
reality  of  the  events  predicted."  But  he  assigns  another, 
and  unjustifiable,  meaning  to  the  words  "  historical  reality  " 
viz.,  simple  existence,  and  then  thinks,  by  using  my  mean- 
ing of  the  phrase,  and  the  only  proper  one,  to  shut  me  up 
to  the  necessity  of  denying  the  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of 
regeneration  ;  or  if  he  means  the  fact  of  regeneration,  he 
has  expressed  himself  very  loosely  and  unintelligibly. 


32^  HIS    SKETCH  OR  REVIEW  OF 

The  doctrine  of  the  Necessity  of  Regeneration,  which  the 
Saviour's  language,  as  quoted  by  Prof.  S.  leaches,  is  an  in- 
tellectual proposition,  having  reference  wholly  to  a  spiritual 
subject.  He  however  would  fain  cut  me  off  from  all  oppor- 
tunity of  retreat  to  the  analogical  import  of  the  words 
"  horn  again,'^  expressing  the  nature  of  that  change  which 
the  Saviour  doctrinally  taught  to  be  necessary.  I  must  take 
the  phrase  literally ,  as  Nicodemus  did,  and  wonder  and  in- 
quire with  him,  how  a  man  when  he  is  old  can  enter  a 
second  time  into  his  mother's  womb  and  be  born? 

Now  the  disingenuousness  of  this  thing  appears  first,  in 
his  confounding  "  things  that  differ."  Abstract  theological 
truth,  exclusively  doctrinal  propositions,  matters  simply  of  a 
"  spiritual  nature," — I  mean  here,  and  so  must  and  does. 
Prof.  S.,  intellectual,  angelic,  spiritual  realities  or  existences, 
— totally  disconnected  from  external  manifestations,  are  not 
events,  deeds,  facts,  things  done,  of  such  sort  as  to  become, 
or  to  be  capable  of  being  made,  matters  of  historical  record 
or  narration.  Consequently  they  want  an  essential  feature 
of  the  system  of  prophecy — are  indeed  radically  different 
from  it.  For  prophecies, — of  which  only  I  speak,  using  the 
word  in  its  specific  import,  as  Prof  S.  must  know,  are  strictly , 
and  properly  predictions,  and  have,  as  I  affirm,  uniformly^.' 
and  invariably,  a  reference  to  events  which  externally  or 
visibly,  and  sensibly  manifest  themselves.  Beyond  this  he 
has  no  right  to  press  my  language  or  "fundamental  posi- 
tion," at  least,  until  he  shows,  that  I  have  not  assumed  a 
correct  idea  or  definition  of  prophecy  or  predictions,  or  that, 
according  to  his  assertion,  simple  abstract  intellectualities, — 
mere  spiritual  existences  that  do  not  and  will  not  manifest 
themselves  by  any  external,  visible,  or  sensible  acts  or 
revelations, — fall  within  the  range  of  prophecy.  This  I  defy 
him  to  do.  Prophecy  is  adapted  to  our  complex  state  of 
existence  as  spiritual  and  corporeal  beings,  dependent  for 
our 'knowledge,  as  well  on  our  senses  as  on  our  intellectual 


THE    DISSERTATIONS.  99, 

perceptions  and  abstractions.  The  theatre  for  its  great  and 
glorious,  and  final  developments  and  fulfilment,  lies  wholly 
on  this  globe, — in  events  and  scenes  to  occur  here,  and  to 
occur,  in  such  manner,  and  manifestations,  as  to  be  per- 
ceptible by  sensible  creatures  or  mortal  men.  I  challenge 
him  to  disprove  this  to  be  the  fact,  and  to  prove  that  intel- 
lectual spiritual  verities,  which  never  externally  and  sensibly 
manifest  themselves,  either  are  or  ever  can  be  the  themes 
of  prophecy.  Yet  has  he  either  not  discerned,  or  refused 
to  recognize,  the  difference  ;  and  has  applied  his  construc- 
tive import  of  my  "  fundamental  position"  on  the  subject 
of  the  interpretation  of  prophecy,  to  themes  of  an  abstract, 
theological,  intellectual,  spiritual  nature.  It  is  ungenerous, 
unjust,  thus  to  confound  "  things  that  differ,"  by  insisting, 
as  he  has  done,  that  doctrinal  truths  are  historical 
events,  and  therefore,  that  in  the  explanation  of  the  former, 
I  must  be  debarred  from  all  reference  to  the  tropical  import 
of  language,  and  be  compelled  to  interpret  metaphorical 
expressions  literally.  When  Prof  S.  will  prove,  that  Pro- 
phecy and  Theology  are  identical,  then,  but  not  till  then, 
can  he  crowd  upon  me  the  absurdities  he  has  imagined. 

The  SECOND  proof  of  his  disengenuousness,  which  I  notice, 
appears  in  his  imperfect  and  distorted  statement,  of  what  he 
calls  my  "  fundamental  position."  I  have  said  that  the  lite- 
ral system  of  interpretation,  which  applies  to  prophecy,  "as- 
sumes the  literality  or  historical  reality  of  the  events  pre- 
dicted, and  resorts  to  the  grammatical  interpretation  of  the 
language  of  prophecy  to  determine  its  meaning  J'  P.  34  of 
Dissertation.  Professor  S.  needs  not  to  be  told,  that  the 
grammatical  interpretation — which  I  have  affirmed  must  be 
resorted  to  in  order  to  determine  the  meaning  of  prophecy 
— does  NOT  prohibit  the  application  of  the  rhetorical  and 
other  rules  appropriate  to  tropical,  symbolical,  or  typical 
styles  of  language,  when  such  language  is  employed  by  the 
prophets.     I  have  quoted  Ernesti  and  Vitringa,  and  given 


34-  HIS   SKETCH  OR  REVIEW  OF 

an  example,  and  amply  illustrated  this  point,  so  that  no  one 
can  fairly  and  legitimately  charge  me  with  teaching — or  my 
"  fundamental  position,"  as  I  state  it,  with  implying — that 
the  language  of  prophecy  is  to  be  interpreted  literally 
in  Professor  S.'s  sense,  viz.,  by  the  entire  rejection  and  con- 
tempt of  tropes,  symbols,  types  and  figures  of  speech.  See 
pp.  35-37  of  Dissertations. 

I  have  shown  also,  that  the  habits  of  speech,  founded  on 
the  very  laws  of  human  thought,  according  to  which  men 
express  their  ideas  tropically,  or  by  means  of  symbols  and 
types,  must  and  will  be  respected  by  the  grammatical  inter- 
preter. What  these  are,  I  need  not  now  state,  having  done 
so  in  the  Dissertations.  I  have  used  the  following  language 
when  purposely  attempting  to  correct  the  misapprehensions 
existing,  in  reference  to  the  literal  or  grammatical  interpre-- 
tation,  as  applied  to  the  prophecies,  **  That  it  does  not  reject 
the  tropes  of  speech,  and  rhetorical  embellishments  of  style, 
but  interprets  the  meaning  of  the  prophets,  always  by  the  same 
rules  of  exegesis  that  would  be  applied  to  the  same  kinds  of 
composition/'  and  that  it  "requires  a  careful  attention  to  the 
different  styles  of  prophetical  language,  for  the  purpose  of 
applying  the  appropriate  rules,  by  which  to  ascertain  their 
import.''     See  Dissertations,  pp.  99,  105. 

Professor  S.  must  have  read  with  great  carelessness  or 
haste,  to  have  allowed  himself  so  to  misrepresent  and  distort, 
what  he  calls  my  "  fundamental  position,"  as  to  charge  me 
and  it  with  the  absurdities  he  seems  to  think  he  has  nailed  •' 
to  it,  like  some  dead,  hideous,  frightful  owl,  which  he  has 
shot,  and  exposed,  to  forewarn  all  others  of  what  they  may 
expect  from  his  rifle,  if  they  will  not  become  alarmed, 
but  will  dare  to  venture  near  his  premises. 

I  have  said  other  things,  yet  more  explicit,  if  possible, 
and  expletive  of  the  system  of  "  literal  or  grammatical  in- 
terpretation" as  applied  to  the  prophecies ;  especially  this 
one  of  sential  things,  which  he  has,  most  prudently  and 


-e-;-,'**"*--         THE   DISSERTATIONS.  35 

earefully,  kept  entirely  out  of  view,  not  having  even  alluded 
to  it  once  in  the  whole  of  his  strictures,  viz.,  that  it  ''  care 
fully  searches  for  the  great  and  leading  themes  of  prophecy 
which  gives  shape,  character,  and  import  to  the  entire  sys- 
tem, and  applying  to  them  the  rules  of  philosophical  and 
biblical  exegesis — the  principles  of  grammatical  construction 
and  interpretation, — determines  whether  they  are  to  be  in- 
terpreted literally  or  allegorically T  Professor  S.  seems  to 
have  had  it  in  his  view,  nevertheless,  when  he  attempted  to 
make  the  impression,  that  prophecy  ranges,  as  well  in  the 
abstract  *'  world  of  mind"  as  in  "  the  world  of  matter" — 
among  simple  intellectual  or  spiritual  existences,  and  exter- 
nal sensible  realities,  or  as  he  says  correctly,  when  speaking 
of  historic  realities,  "  in  the  sense  in  which  Mr.  D.  employs 
this  phrase,  i.  e.  mundane,  visible,  palpable  reality."  He 
cannot  charge  me  with  unfairness  and  disingenuousness 
here  ;  for,  if  he  did  not  mean  to  intimate,  that  prophecies,  i.  e. 
predictions,  relate  as  well  to  simple  intellectual  or  spiritual 
verities,  which  do  not  externally  manifest  themselves,  i.  e. 
find  not  their  accomplishment  in  "  mundane,  visible,  palpa- 
ble reality,"  as  to  those  that  do,  then  all  his  attempt  to  put 
my  "  fundamental  position,"  relative  to  the  interpretation  of 
prophecy,  to  the  test,  is  perfectly  abortive.  I  speak  only  of 
prophecy,  affirming  and  teaching,  that  it  finds  its  accom- 
plishment in  real  historical  events,  "  mundane,  visible,  pal- 
pable reality,"  as  he  knows. 

If  prophecy  does  indeed  enter  the  regions  of  abstract  in- 
tellectual and  spiritual  existences,  lying  without  and  wholly 
separate  from  this  world,  and  not  externally,  visibly,  palpa- 
bly manifesting  themselves  in  this  mundane  sphere,  then  I 
acknowledge,  that  I  am  altogether  at  fault,  and  shall  ever 
despair  of  knowing,  not  only  what  is  the  fulfilment,  but 
even  what  is  the  nature,  of  prophecy.  But  if  it  does  not,  if 
its  theatre  is  this  world,  and  not  another,  then,  all  that  Prof 
S.  has  said  about  "  historic  realities'^  including  within  the 


36  HIS  SKETCH  OR  REVIEW  OF  THE  DISSERTATIONS. 

circle  of  "  the  world  of  mind,"  the  divine  Being  and  an-, 
gelic  intelligences,  as  they  exist, — he  means  independently 
of  external  sensible  manifestations,  if  he  means  any  thing  to 
the  point, — is  to  no  manner  of  purpose.  That  it  does  not, 
I  once  more  affirm.  If  he  means  to  say  it  does,  I  charge 
him  first  with  holding  and  teaching  a  very  vague,  mystic, 
unmeaning,  undefinable,  absurd  notion  of  the  nature  of 
prophecy ;  and  second,  with  great  disingenuousness  toward 
me,  in  applying  my  fundamental  position  in  a  region,  to 
which,  according  to  its  very  terms  and  the  essential  nature 
of  prophecy,  it  is  totally  inapplicable,  and  also  in  putting  a 
forced  and  perverted  construction  on  part  of  my  language, 
directly  in  the  very  face  of,  and  contrary  to  what  I  have 
stated  to  be  the  appropriate  rule  of  interpretation,  and  what 
I  have  assumed  and  taught  to  be  the  nature  of  prophecy. 

In  his  attempt  to  represent  me  as  teaching  absurdity,  he 
has  assumed  too  great  a  license,  and  having  sketched  his 
picture  of  monstrosities  by  putting  things  out  of  their  proper 
elements, 

Qui  variare  cupit  rem  prodigaliter  unatn, 
Delphinum  sylvis  appingit,  fluctibus  aprum. 

He  tries,  with  monstrous  wonders  to  surprise, — 
In  the  broad  forest  bids  his  dolphins  play, 
And  paints  his  boars  disporting  in  the  sea. 

But  in  so  doing,  he  has  rendered  himself  obnoxious  to  the  ■ 
very  charge  he  brings  against  me.  The  reader's  attention  is 
requested,  therefore,  in  the  next  place,  to 


CHAPTER  IV. 


DEFINITION    OF  HISTORIC    REALITIES   HAS    LED    HIM. 

1.  It  has  led  him  to  turn  his  own  weapons  against  himself. 
Having  defined  "  historic  realiti/"  to  be  something  or  any 
thing  which  takes  place  or  has  an  actual  existence,  in  distinc- 
tion from  what  is  merely  supposed  or  imaginary  ;  having 
shewn,  as  he  thinks,  that  God  and  angelic  intelligencies,  all 
existence  in  "  the  world  of  mind,"  are  such,  and,  having 
taken  my  sense  of  "  historic  reality"  as  something  **  which 
is  of  a  visible  and  sensible  nature,"  to  force  me,  for  consis- 
tency's sake,  to  deny  the  necessity  or  spiritual  nature  and 
reality  of  regeneration,  or  "  being  born  again,"  he  says  : 
"  This  is  in  reality  a  correct  exposition  and  application  of 
his  (my)  principle ;  and  if  so,  and  if  (as  is  truly  the  case) 
this  leads  to  absurdity,  then  there  is  not  the  weight  of  a 
grain  of  sand  in  what  he  brings  forward  to  support  the  idea 
of  a  visible,  terrestrial ,  future  kingdom  of  Christ."  App. 
p.  158. 

I  must  confess,  that  when  I  read  this,  I  felt  somewhat  of 
his  amazement  whom  the  story  reports  to  have  gone  to  wit- 
ness a  juggler's  feats,  and  having  seen  him,  by  an  unlucky 
turn  in  the  brandishings  of  his  sword,  cut  off  his  own  head, 
gravely  inquired,  "What  will  he  do  next]"  He  certainly 
has,  by  one  dexterous  coup  de  main,  demolished,  not  mine, 
but  his  own  fundamental  position. 

According  to  his  bold,  unqualified  definition  of  *^  historic 
reality  "  whatever  has  existence  is  such,  whether  reveal- 
ing itself  by  external  sensible  acts  or  manifestations,  or  not. 
All  that  it  needs  to  make  it  such,  as  he  teaches,  is,  that  it  is 
not  a  fiction — merely  imaginary  ! !  I  wonder  if  the  fictions 
of  the  imagination,  according  to  his  very  showing,  have  not 


38  PROFESSOR    STUAKt's    DILEMMA 

as  veritable  an  existence  as  any  other  acts  in  *'  the  world  of 
mind  ;" — unquestionably,  just  as  veritable  as  the  acts  and 
operations  of  the  mind  that  imagined  them ;  but  they  are 
not  realities  after  all,  and  every  man  of  plain  common  sense 
vi^ould  smile  at  Professor  S.  were  he  to  call  them  such,  be- 
cause, forsooth,  they  lie  within  "  the  world  of  mind."  This 
is  one  awkward  and  absurd  result  of  his  principle. 

It  will  not  do  for  Professor  S.  to  say  he  means,  that 
simple  spiritual  existence,  or  entity,  is  capable  of  becoming 
matter  of  historical  record.  This  I  do  not  deny ;  for  it  may 
make  known  both  its  existence  and  actings  by  external 
sensible  manifestations,  as  God  and  angelic  intelligencies 
have  done.  My  assumed  idea  of  historic  reality,  which  is 
the  common  and  authorized  idea,  does  not  exclude  the 
Divine  Being  and  angelic  intelligencies,  or  even  the  new 
birth,  from  becoming  matter  of  historical  record,  since  they 
do  externally  and  sensibly  manifest  themselves ;  but  I  insist 
upon  it,  that  it  is  only  as  they  do  so  manifest  themselves,  that 
they  either  are,  or  that  we  are  capable  of  making  and  re- 
garding them  as  historical  realities.  Existence,  ipso  facto, 
forms  not  an  historical  reality.  It  does  but  furnish  the 
subject,  theme,  or  material,  which  may  become  history  by 
its  manifestations.     I  challenge  Professor  S.  to  deny  it. 

Neither  will  it  do  for  him  to  say  he  means  only,  that  the 
acts  of  the  Divine  Being,  and  of  angelic  intelligencies,  and 
the  fact  of  the  new  birth,  are  as  proper  subjects  for  history 
as  any  other  acts  and  facts.  This  I  do  not  deny :  but  at  the 
same  time  I  affirm,  that  just  as  in  the  case  of  simple  exist- 
ence,— it  is  only  as  such  acts  and  facts  do  manifest  them- 
selves externally  and  sensibly,  that  they  are,  or  that  we  are 
capable  of  making  or  regarding  them  as  historical  realities. 

The  actings  of  our  own  minds  may  manifest  themselves 
to  ourselves,  through  our  own  consciousness,  and  recorded  in 
our  memory,  they  become  part  and  parcel  of  the  private  per- 
sonal history  of  our  own  being,  known  to  ourselves.    But  they 


IN    DEFINING    HISTORIC    REALITIJ 


can  never  become  matter  of  history  to  others,  e^re^tas  mi 


body  forth  in  some  sensible  expression  or  manifestation.  sJJi  ^ 

In  like  manner,  it  is  only  as  the  acts  of  the  Divine  Being, 
and  of  angelic  intelligencies,  as  regeneration,  and  other  spirit- 
ual realities,  embody  themselves  in  some  external,  sensible 
manifestations,  that  they  become  subjects  of  historical  re- 
cord. This  Prof.  S.  cannot  deny  that  he  knows,  and  did 
know,  to  be  what  I  mean  by  historical  reality ;  for  he  has 
virtually  acknowledged  it.  He  must  therefore  have  meant 
it  to  be  understood  by  his  readers  that  his  idea  of  historical 
reality  was  totally  and  radically  different  from  mine, — some- 
thing that  takes  place,  or  has  an  actual  existence  altogether 
independent  of  any  external,  visible,  sensible  manifestations. 
If  this  be  his  idea,  then  he  is  driven  to  the  absurdity  of  main- 
taining, that  we  can  have  some  intuitive,  mesmeric  knowledge, 
shall  I  say,  of  God  and  angels,  and  spiritual  realities,  which 
do  not  reveal  themselves  to  us  by  any  external  manifes- 
tations :  and,  if  so,  how  perfectly  unnecessary  must  have 
been  all  the  external  manifestations  of  Deity,  and  the  subli- 
mer  and  more  wonderful  displays  made  in  the  Incarnation 
of  the  Son  of  God— '' God  manifest  in  the  flesh"!  But 
if  he  does  not  so  mean,  and  admits,  that  it  is  just  as  God, 
angelic  intelligencies,  spiritual  realities,  "  or,  (as  we  may 
say,)  any  thing  which  takes  place,  or  has  an  actual  exist- 
ence," i.  e.,  some  act  or  event,  some  being  or  fact,  "  in  the 
world  of  mind,"  body  forth  in  some  external  manifesta- 
tion,— or,  in  other  words,  pass  into  the  sensible  world,  we 
can  have  any  knowledge  of  them,  so  as  to  make  it  matter  of 
historical  record,  "  then  there  is  not  the  weight  of  a  grain 
of  sand,  in  what  he  brings  forward,  to  support "  his  defini- 
tion of  historical  reality,  and  the  fundamental  position,  on 
which  his  spiritual  interpretation  of  prophecy  rests.  It  is 
all  mist  or  smoke,  from  which  he  attempts  to  bring  light. 
In  a  very  different  sense  from  what  Horace  says  of  Homer,  I 
may  use  his  words,  and  say  of  the  Professor, 


Si 


40  PROFESSOR  Stuart's  dilemma 

Non  fumum  ex  fulgore,  sed  ex  fumo  dare  lucem 
Cogitat. 

He  thinks,  not  with  smoke,  to  shroud  his  glory  bright, 
But,  from  dense  smoke,  to  radiate  the  lurid  light. 

2.  His  metapTiysical  definition  of  "  Jiistoric  reality' '  has 
led  him  to  reject,  utterly  and  forever,  the  idea  of  a  future 
visible  terrestrial  kingdom  of  Christ.  I  have  already  quo- 
ted his  language,  but  again  bespeak  the  reader's  attention  to 
it.  "  There  is  not,"  he  says,  "  the  weight  of  a  grain  of 
sand  to  support  the  idea  of  a  visible  terrestrial  future 
kingdom  of  Christ."  I  would  not  willingly  misinterpret  his 
language,  nor  take  advantage  of  any  looseness  of  expression, 
dropped  in  the  haste  with  which  he  evidently  wrote,  to  mis- 
state his  idea.  So  extraordinary,  at  first  sight,  did  the  above 
language  appear,  that  I  felt  persuaded  he  must  mean  my 
idea,  as  he  would  call  it,  of  the  future  kingdom  of  Christ, 
which,  I  confess,  is  distinctly,  fully,  avowedly,  that  of  a  king- 
dom both  visible  and  terrestrial;  if  by  terrestrial  he  means 
what  I  do,  and  the  word  imports,  of,  on,  or  belonging  to 
this  planet  earth.  On  a  more  careful  consideration,  how- 
ever, I  find  that  he  has  not  only  made  the  assertion  absolute, 
by  the  use  of  the  definite  article,  but  that  his  whole  argu- 
ment chimes,  exactly,  with  the  natural  and  obvious  import 
of  his  language.  Nay,  more,  he  has  actually  challenged  an 
issue  on  this  very  point.  "  The  simple  question,"  says  he, 
*'  between  us  and  him  is,  not  whether  matter  of  fact  or  his- 
torical reality  is  designated  by  the  prophecies,  but  whether 
the  reality  belongs  to  the  world  of  matter  or  of  mind:"  (the 
italicising  is  his  own.)  We  say,  to  the  latter ;  he  says,  to  the 
former,  if  not  exclusively,  yet  primarily  and  principally." 
App.  p.  158. 

It  would  seem,  from  his  pointing,  that  while  he  cautiously 
and  correctly  admits,  that  my  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
does  not  exclude  the  dominion  of  Christ  from  the  minds  of 
men,  however  it  assumes  its  terrestrial  visibility,  he  would 


IN  DEFINING   HISTORIC   REALITIES.  41 

not  be  understood  to  teach  or  think,  that  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  passes  beyond  **  the  world  of  mind"  into  any  external 
visible  revelations  or  manifestations.  If  this  be  his  idea,  I 
undoubtedly  am  not  as  obnoxious,  as  he  thinks  I  am,  to  his 
rebuke,  for  what  he  calls  "  some  seeming  attempts  secretly 
to  ally  them  (the  Spiritualists)  with  the  skeptics,  who  ex- 
pect only  such  a  golden  age  as  the  perfectibility  of  man 
will  usher  in."  App  p.  160.  There  is  a  much  greater  ap- 
proximation in  his  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  to  the 
rhapsodies  of  Th.  Parker  about  the  transient  and  permanent 
in  Christianity,  than  I  had  supposed  ever  would  be  made  by 
one  so  sound  and  Evangelical  in  his  Theological  views  as  I 
regard  Prof  S.  He  certainly  differs  from  the  common  pre- 
vailing notions  of  the  Spiritualists  about  the  Millennium,  as 
being  the  season  of  universal  peace,  prosperity,  and  domi- 
nant influence  oi  the  Church  of  God,  by  means  of  the  gospel 
in  its  power  and  successful  influence,  and  during  which,  her 
organization  in  its  simplicity  and  purity,  assumes  a  terrestrial 
visibility — both  which  ideas  they  consider  appropriate  to 
the  kingdom  of  Christ,  even  though  they  deny  His  own 
personal  visible  presence  on  the  earth. 

I  will  not  venture  to  say,  whether  Prof.  S.  actually  and 
formally  dissents  from  this  ;  nor  whether  he  denies  the  visi-  v 
ble  Church  to  be  the  kingdom  of  Christ, — which  is  the  cur- 
rent idea  among  commentators  ;  but  I  confess,  that  after 
reading  the  averments  I  have  quoted,  and  comparing  them 
with  his  views  of  the  Millennium  expressed  in  his  Hints  on 
the  interpretation  of  prophecy,  pp.  141 — 143,  1st  ed.,  I  am 
utterly  at  a  loss  to  know,  from  any  thing  he  has  said,  what 
his  ideas  of  it  are,  and  whether  they  are  not  as  widely  dif- 
ferent from  the  great  mass  of  those  with  whom  he  ranks 
himself,  as  from  those  who  believe  in  the  Saviour's  visible'  0^ 
coming. 

But  perhaps  he  will  say,    that    the  words,  viz.,  "  if  not 
exclusively,  yet  primarily,  and  principally,"  are  intended  to     -^ 


42  PROFESSOR   BTUARt's   DILEMMA 

qualify  his  own  implied  idea,  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
must  ever  be  invisible,  as  it  belongs  to  "  the  world  of  mind," 
as  well  as  mine  about  its  terrestrial  visibility.  What  then 
becomes  of  his  first  unqualified  assertion  ?  But  let  us  see 
how  it  will  help  him.  Either  he  thinks,  and  means  to  teach 
the  idea,  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  belongs  to  "  the  world 
of  mind"  "  exclusively ,^'  so  as  to  be  devoid  of  terrestrial 
visibility,  or  only  "  primarily  and  principally,"  yet  not  so 
as  to  be  devoid  of  terrestrial  visibility.  If  he  means  the 
former,  as  his  language,  argument  and  connection  of  re- 
marks intimate,  he  contradicts  the  whole  tenor  and  specific 
statements  of  the  Bible.  The  kingdom  of  Christ,  of  which 
I  spoke,  as  predicted  in  the  Scriptures,  is  not  an  invisible 
dominion  belonging  "  exclusively"  to  "  the  world  of  mind." 
I  refer  him  to  2  Tim.  iv.  1,  where  Paul  charges  Timothy 
"  before  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  shall  judge  the 
quick  and  dead  at  his  appearing  and  Jiis  kingdom^ — The 
one  is  just  as  visible  as  the  other,  and  this  earth  too  is  the 
theatre  for  the  manifestation  of  both.  If  Prof  S.  does  not 
like  the  translation, — at  being  somewhat  obscure  and  unin- 
telligible in  this  connection — I  have  no  objection,  that  he 
translate  it  more  exactly,  and  render  naja  m  relation  to,  in 
respect  to,  concerning,  so  as  to  designate  what  was  in  fact 
the  subject  of  Paul's  charge,  "  his  own  (Christ's)  appearing 
or  epiphany,  xr/v  tnicpavsLav  avxov  and  his  own  kingdom."  The 
use  of  the  definite  article  tov  before  Xoyov  in  v.  2,  and  t^? 
before  ahiddag  in  v.  4,  deserves  his  particular  attention : 
and  I  commend  the  whole  charge,  from  v.  2  to  5  inclusive, 
to  his  careful  regard,  lest  by  denying  the  terrestrial  visi- 
bility of  Christ's  glorious  kingdom  at  his  appearing,  he 
may,  if  he  does  so,  be  fostering  the  very  state  of  things 
which  Paul  said  would  arise,  during  a  future  season  xuLQog 
when  men  will  not  endure  this  jtjg  wholesome  doctrine, 
but  shall  turn  away  the  ear  from  this  rijg  truth,  and  shall  be 
turned  to  fables  Tovg  fiv&ovg,  i.  e.  as  I  might  add,  the  alle- 


/ 


IN    DEFINING    HISTORIC    REALITIES.  48 

gorical,  mythic,  spiritual  interpretation,  introduced  by  their 
teachers  to  suit  their  tastes;  and  facts  would  prove  the  truth 
of  the  prophecy.  The  appearance  and  kingdom  of  Christ, 
which  is  everlasting,  occur  together;  and  so  the  angel 
taught  Daniel  vii.  27,  22,  13,  for  any  thing  to  the  contrary 
that  Prof  S.  in  his  Hints  has  been  able  to  show. 

But  even  denying  the  appearance  of  Christ,  and  admitting 
the  Spiritualist's  view  of  the  Millennium  to  occur  when  ''  the 
kingdoms  of  this  world  shall  become  the  kingdom  of  our  ^ 
Lord  and  of  his  Christ,  and  He  shall  reign  forever  and 
ever,"  according  to  prophecy,  it  will  unquestionably  be 
visible  and  terrestrial.  A  mere  dominion  over  "  the  world 
of  mind"  will  not  at  all  suit  this  description.  It  must  body 
forth  in  some  visible,  palpable  display.  If  Professor  S.  means  ^ 
to  say  that  it  will  not,  he  is  contradicted  by  the  Scriptures  in 
their  plain  and  obvious  import.  He  is  referred  to  Mai.  iii. 
1-4  :  i.  11 :  Zech.  xiv.  4-11  :  Hag.  ii.  6,7,  compared  with 
Heb.  xii.  26-29  :  Zeph.  iii.  8-17 :  Heb.  iii.  3-6 :  Nah.  i. 
5-8  :  Mic.  v.  4-15  :  iv.  1-7  :  Obad.  xvii.  21 :  Amos  ix.  11- 
15  :  Joel  iii.  16, 17  :  Hos.  i.  10,  11  :  ii.  14-23  :  Dan.  vii. 
27:  Ezek.  xxxviii.  19-23 :  xxxix.  21,22:  Jer.  xxv.  30-33  : 
Isai.  Ixiii.  1-6 :  Ixii.  1-7 :  Psalm  ex.  Ixxxix.  19-37 :  2  Pet. 
iii.  10-13:  IPet.  i.  4,5,7-13:  Heb.  ix.  28:  2  Thess.  ii. 
1-8  :  i.  7,  8,  9 :  1  Thess.  iv.  16, 17  :  ii.  19  :  i.  14  :  Eph. 
i.  10 :  Rom.  viii.  17-19.  Let  him  spiritualize  and  alle-  ^r 
gorize  as  he  may,  he  must  outrage  every  principle  of  inter- 
pretation that  claims  the  sanction  of  common  sense,  be- 
fore he  can  get  rid  of  the  grand  leading  prominent  truth, 
the  future  appearing  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  futurity  of  His 
glorious  visible  kingdom  to  be  established  on  this  globe.         ^ 

If,  however,  he  means  to  be  understood,  according  to  the 
latter  construction  of  his  language,  that  is  not  to  deny  the  ter- 
restrial visibility  of  Christ's  kingdom  altogether,  but  only  to 
say,  that  it  is  not  "primarily  and  principally"  a  visible  ter- 
restrial kingdom,  he  gives  up  the  very  question  on  which  he 


44 

has  made  an  issue ;  or  rather,  there  is  no  room  for  the 
question  at  all,  whether  it  belongs  to  the  one  or  the  other — 
"the  world  of  mind,"  or  '*  the  world  of  matter" — for  it  ac- 
tually, and  by  the  very  terms  of  his  admission,  belongs  to 
both,  and  cannot  be  disparted  from  either.  It  is  this  union 
which  makes  it  matter  of  history.  Will  Professor  S.  say 
how  much,  or  how  little,  of  its  visibility,  is  necessary  to 
render  it  capable  of  becoming  matter  of  historical  record  ? 
It  matters  not  whether  he  goes  to  the  extent  that  I  believe 
the  Scriptures  do,  or  not.  If  it  is  in  any  degree  visible,  it 
belongs  not  wholly  to  "  the  world  of  mind  ;"  and  if  so, 
what  becomes  of  his  distinction  ?  It  is  of  no  use  to  him.  I 
care  not  whether  he  says  it  belongs  **  primarily  and  princi- 
pally^^ to  "  the  world  of  mind,"  for  so  I  believe,  and  so 
teach ;  but  I  affirm  that  it  is  only  as  it  becomes  externally 
manifest,  i.  e.  visibly  or  sensibly  bodies  forth  into  "  the  world 
of  matter,"  that  it  either  is  an  '*  historic  reality,"  or  can  be- 
come the  subject  of  historical  record.  Simply,  exclusively, 
as  intellectual,  rational  or  spiritual,  it  maybe  reality,  in  dis- 
tinction from  what  is  "  supposed  or  imaginary,"  but  not  an 
*' historical  reality."  Just  so,  the  new  birth  may  be  a  reality, 
and  as  such  invisible,  occurring  in  "  the  world  of  mind,"  ac- 
cording to  Professor  S.'s  nomenclature.  But  it  is  only  as  it  dis- 
plays itself  in  external,  sensible,  or  visible  acts  or  evidences, 
so  as  to  be  discerned  and  reported  among  men,  that  it  can 
ever  become  an  ''  historical  reality."  I  deem  it,  therefore, 
altogether  unnecessary  any  further  to  answer  his  interroga- 
tory, viz.,  "  How  now,  on  the  ground  of  a  visible  historic, 
reality  being  necessarily  implied,  are  we  going  to  prove  that 
entering  a  second  time  into  the  womb  and  being  born,  is 
not  the  natural,  yea,  the  necessary  meaning  of  the  words  of 
the  Saviour  ?  We  could  not  prove  it."  He  has  his  an- 
swer. Just  by  the  same  rules,  by  which  we  tell  when  an 
expression  is  a  metaphor,  and  when  it  is  not.  He  might 
have  read  it  in  the  Dissertations,  pp.  109,  111.     Nothing 


IN   DEFINING    HISTORIC   REALITIES.  45 

that  I  have  said  contravenes  or  supersedes  it.  All  he  has 
said,  in  answer  to  it  himself,  just  amounts  to  this,  and  no 
more  :  and  so,  after  talking  most  grandiloquently  about 
"  the  world  of  mind,"  and  "  the  vforld.  of  matter,"  and  un- 
dertaking to  tell  us,  most  condescendingly,  how  to  know 
when  an  expression  denotes  a  reality  in  the  one  or  the  other, 
he  puts  us  off  with  the  old,  trite,  stale,  simple  rule,  that 
every  tyro  in  rhetoric  has  learned,  how  to  tell  when  an  ex- 
pression is  metaphorical ! ! ! 

Quid  dignum  tanto  feret  hie  promissor  hiatu  ? 
Parturiunt  monies  ;  nascetur  ridiculus  mus. 
How  will  the  boaster  hold  this  yawning  rate  ? 
The  mountains  labored  with  prodigious  throes, 
And  lo  !  a  mouse  ridiculous  arose. 

3.  If  Prof  S.  means  any  thing  more  than  this,  then  his 
definition  of  "  historic  reality,^'  has  led  him  to  violate  a  fun- 
damental principle  of  interpretation,  and  to  lay  a  foundation 
for  scriptural  exegesis,  wholly  untenable  and  dangerous. 
Ernesti,  as  I  have  shown.  Dissertations,  pp.  34,  35,  has 
taught  us,  that  the  true  system  of  interpretation,  *'  adheres 
to  the  words,  and  directs  us  to  comprehend  things,  through 
the  medium  of  words,  and  not  words,  through  the  medium 
of  things."  The  mystic,  spiritual  system,  which  he  con- 
demns, he  says,  "philosophizes  rather  than  interprets,  and 
prefers  to  be  metaphysical  rather  than  grammatical,  or  as  it 
is  uncouthly  expressed,  real  rather  than  verbal."  He  means 
to  say  that  scriptural  language  must  not  be  interpreted  by 
any  preconceived,  metaphysical,  or  philosophical  notion  of 
the  nature  of  the  thing. 

I  have  given  examples  of  this  sort,  and  shown  even  by 
the  help  of  Prof.  S.  himself,  the  pernicious  use,  which  has 
been  made  of  Scripture,  by  employing  a  preconceived  notion 
of  the  theological,  spiritual,  or  recondite  nature  of  the  thing, 
as  the  key  to  unlock  the  meaning  of  the  words.  See  Disser- 
tations, pp.  36-45. 

4 


46  PROFESSOR    STUAHt's    DILEMMA 

I  shall  now  quote  examples  from  Prof.  S.  of  the  violation 
ofthis  very  essential  principle.  Here  are  two.  "It  is  impossi- 
ble," says  he,  "  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  glorified  bodies 
should  dwell  in,  and  belong  to  a  material  world  :  and  it 
would  be  utterly  incongruous  with  the  state  of  perfection 
and  glory,  promised  to  saints,  to  suppose  that  they  are  to 
come  back  from  the  presence  and  beatific  vision  of  their 
God  and  Saviour,  to  a  terrestrial,  limited,  and  degraded 
condition ;  for  degraded  it  really  is,  in  comparison  with 
their  heavenly  state."  App.  p.  159.  How  does  he  know?  Let 
him  prove  his  assertion.  I  will  not  attempt  to  conjecture 
what  ideas  Prof.  S.  has  of  the  nature  of  glorified  bodies,  or 
whence  he  has  obtained  the  knowledge  on  the  subject  which 
makes  him  judge  so  boldly  and  degmatically  of  the  impossi- 
hility  of  their  dwelling  in  and  belonging  to  a  material 
world.  He  must  have  some  private  sources  of  information, 
with  which  the  world  is  totally  unacquainted.  For  I  con- 
fess, that  as  to  my  knowledge  about  the  matter,  I  have  never 
heard,  read  of,  or  been  referred,  by  any  individual  or  book, 
to  any  other  book,  man,  woman  or  child,  that  knew  or 
could  declare  a  whit  more  than  I  do  myself  on  the  subject, 
which  is  just  nothing  at  all! 

But  this  much  I  do  know,  as  a  matter  of  unerring  history, 
that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  his  glorified  body,  did  dwell  for 
about  forty  days  in  this  material  world,  somewhere  among  the 
mountains  in  Galilee,  in  habits  of  intimate  and  familiar  con- 
verse with  his  apostles,  yea,  and  did  also  eat  before  them, 
who  were  mortal  men,  in  the  fiesh.  See  Acts  i.  3:  Matt, 
xxvi.  32 :  Mark  xvi.  7 :  Luke  xxiv.  41 — 43.  I  wonder 
if  Professor  S.  can  explain  all  this  historical  reality  to 
belong  to  "the  world  of  mind?"  He  need  not  attempt 
to  tell  us  that  our  Saviour's  raised  body  was  not  his  glo- 
rified body,  nor  talk  to  us  of  Paul's  tropical  expression, 
**  spiritual  body,"  as  though  it  were  literally  a  third  body  he 
received  at  his  ascension,  for  Paul  will  contradict  him  by 
telling  him,  in  that  *'  most  extended  and  graphic  account  of 


IN   DEFINING    HISTORIC    REALITIES.  4^ 

the  resurrection  of  the  saints,"  that  "  it  is  sown  a  natural 
body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body."      1  Cor.  xv.  44. 

I  know  also,  as  matter  of  historical  reality,  that  the  glori- 
fied body  of  Elias,  and  Moses  too, — I  care  not  whether  Pro- 
fessor S,  will  give  the  latter  a  glorified  body,  or  only  spirit, 
it  was  undeniably  something  living,  moving,  speaking,  and 
visible,  displaying  itself  externally  and  sensibly, — both  did 
come  from  whatever  place  they  dwelt  in  before  and  appeared 
in  this  material  world  and  conversed  with  Christ,  in  the  pre- 
sence and  hearing  of  his  apostles,  while  yet  in  the  flesh. 
Matt.  xvii.  1 — 9.  If  the  glorified  bodies  of  Christ  and  of  Mo- 
ses and  Elias  could  dwell  in  and  belong  to  this  material 
world  for  forty  days,  or  fo7'tr/  minutes, — and  that  they  did 
Professor  S.  dare  not  deny, — it  is  perfect  nonsense,  a  mere 
old  womanish  conceit,  for  him  to  tell  us  that  "  it  is  impossi- 
ble, in  the  nature  of  things,  that  glorified  bodies  should  dwell 
in  and  belong  to  a  material  world."  He  may  laugh  as  he 
pleases  at  my  faith ;  but  with  such  facts  as  these,  in  disproof 
of  his  philosophy,  or  metaphysics,  or  conceits,  about  "  the 
nature  of  things,"  he  is  not  going  to  laugh  me  out  of  it.  I 
therefore  return  his  compliment,  not  in  the  miserable  bung- 
ling manner  in  which  he  has  attempted  to  quote  Horace, 
see  App.  p.  164,  in  language  which  outrages  the  bard,  and 
which  a  moment's  attention  to  prosody,  would  have  reproved 
his  memory  for  having  forgotten  the  hexameter  measure; 
but  in  Horace's  own  words. 

Quod  cunque  ostendis  mihi  sic,  incredulus  odi. 

Whatever  of  this  sort  you  state 

1  do  incredulously  hate. 

He  may  talk,  and  dream,  as  he  pleases,  about  its  being 
utterly  "  incongruous  with  the  state  of  perfection  and  glory 
promised  to.  the  saints,"  that  they  should  "  come  back  from 
the  presence  and  beatific  vision  of  their  God  and  Saviour, 
to  a  terrestrial,  limited  and  degraded  condition ;"  but  in  so 
doing,  he  only  betrays  his  ignorance  of  Millenarians'  faith. 


48  **PROFEssoR  Stuart's  dilemma 

They  believe  and  teach  no  such  thing.  Wherever  Christ 
is,  "  there  is  fulness  of  joy  and  pleasures  for  ever  more." 
There,  too,  is  the  spot  where  the  redeemed  desire  to  be. 
The  apostles,  when  they  had  but  the  transfiguration  of  their 
Saviour  before  them,  conversing  with  Moses  and  Eli  as  on 
the  mount, — a  mere  representation  of  the  real  glory  to 
come, — were  overjoyed,  and  wished  there  to  dwell.  Paul 
desired  to  depart  and  be  with  Christ.  That  was  heaven 
enough  for  him.  To  be  with  Christ  is  the  consummation  of 
heaven's  felicity ;  heaven,  without  it,  would  be  drear  and 
desolate  to  the  ransomed  soul.  The  redeemed  and  glorified 
saints  attend  His  presence.  It  is  joy,  glory,  triumph,  ineffa- 
ble bliss  and  delight,  to  be  where  He  is ;  whether  it  be 
where  He  now  is,  or  where  He  shall  be  when  He  returns  to 
earth.  No  Millenarian,  whose  writings  I  have  ever  read, 
teaches  the  idea  of  returning  to  a  degraded  state.  Professor 
S.  evidently  thinks  that  any  state  on  earth  cannot  but  be  a 
degraded  state,  compared  with  the  heavenly.  Whatever  it 
may  be,  provided  the  glorified  saints  shall  be  associated  with, 
related  to,  or  dwell  on,  this  material  globe  or  any  other,  he 
assumes  it  must  be  far  inferior.  Here  he  begs  the  question. 
Proof,  proof  is  demanded.  Let  him  eclaircise  his  ideas  of 
the  heavenly  state  a  little.  I  insist  upon  his  giving  some- 
thing scriptural  here,  and  will  not  be  put  off  with  the  cry  of 
tropes  and  figures,  analogical  language,  &:.c.  &-c.,  and  after 
all  left  in  utter  darkness  and  ignorance  of  where  heaven  is, 
and  what  it  is — whether  it  is  a  state,  a  sphere,  a  vast  con- 
cavity, an  ethereal  medium,  a  something  utterly,  absolutely, 
eternally  separated  from  the  material  universe.  I  will  not 
allow  him  thus  to  assume  a  philosophical,  metaphysical,  mys- 
tical, poetical,  or  any  other  idea  of  heaven,  which  the  Bible 
does  not  teach,  and  then  make  it  the  key,  by  which  to  unlock 
the  meaning  of  scriptural  language ;  and  having  done  so, 
undertake  to  judge  of  the  impossibility  of  this  or  the  other 
thing,  directly  in  the  very  teeth  of  undeniable  facts. 


IN    DEFINING   H^DRIC    REALITIES.  4^ 

I  know  nothing  more  about  the  heavenly  state,  on  which 
we  shall  enter  at  death,  nor  does  Prof.  S.,  than  that  what- 
ever or  wherever  it  is,  it  is  where  Christ  is — and  where  those 
ransomed  spirits  that  enter  it  enjoy  conscious  peace,  rest 
and  joy,  in  their  Lord  and  Saviour.  He  and  I,  if  we  would 
die  in  peace,  must  both  die  in  faith,  like  all  the  ancient  wor- 
thies. If  we  would  enter  there,  we  must  commit  our  souls 
into  the  hands  of  the  blessed  Jesus,  assured  that  with  Him 
they  are  safe,  and  that  He  will  do  all  things  right — but  trust 
Him  fully  and  implicitly.  It  has  not  pleased  Him  to  give 
us  any  specific  information  as  to  the  locality,  employments, 
or  any  thing  else  in  detail  about  the  heavenly  state,  at  least 
until  the  day  of  the  resurrection  of  our  bodies.  For  all 
the  intervening  period,  we  must  trust  Him  with  the  most  im- 
plicit and  incurious  faith,  like  the  child  that  nestles  in  its 
mother's  bosom  in  the  midst  of  darkness.  Doubtless  it  will 
be  "  joy  ineffable  and  full  of  glory ;"  but  the  promises  of  God, 
that  reveal  our  glory  and  triumph — the  predictions  that  place 
before  us  a  new  Heaven  and  a  new  earth — the  objects  of 
hope  and  gladdening  expectation,  direct  us  to  a  glorious 
epoch  or  crisis  in  the  affairs  alike  of  Heaven  and  earth,  even 
the  day  of  our  Redeemer's  coming  in  the  clouds  of  Heaven, 
for  the  resurrection  of  the  bodies  of  the  just.  When  this 
occurs,  the  vision  of  hope  opens.  It  is  the  hour  of  adoption, 
the  hour  of  victory,  the  realization  of  our  hopes.  Paul  did 
not  expect  his  "  crown  of  righteousness"  till  that  day — the 
day  of  Christ's  appearing.  Peter  did  not  expect  his  crown, 
either,  till  that  day  ;  1  Peter  v.  4 ;  nor  the  possession  of  his 
inheritance,  incorruptible,  undefiled,  and  that  fadeth  not 
away,  though  reserved  in  heaven,  till  the  consummation  of 
that  salvation  which  was  ready  to  be  revealed  in  the  last 
time,  the  time  when  his  faith  would  be  found  unto  praise,  and 
honour,  and  glory, — at  the  appearing  of  Jesus  Christ.  1 
Peter  i.  3-7. 

Prof.  S.  has  much  to  do  in  the  way  of  biblical   exegesis 


50  ■  PROFESSOR  Stuart's  dilemma,  etc. 

aftd  logical  argumentation,  before  he  will  be  alloweJf  to^ale 
some  things  for  granted,  and  to  pronounce,  by  their  help, 
others  to  be  impossible,  as  he  has  done.  Yet,  on  this  slen- 
der, baseless,  visionary,  unjustifiable  assumption,  and  beg- 
ging of  the  question,  he  founds  his  whole  system  of  exposi- 
tion, and  fortifies  himself,  planting  his  artillery,  as  he  thinks, 
on  some  solid  foundation,  whence  to  hurl  his  missile  inter- 
rogatories and  charges  of  inconsistencies  against  the  faith 
he  ridicules,  and  which  Millenarians  entertain  by  virtue  of 
the  promises  and  predictions  of  Christ.  But  if  he  proves 
any  thing,  he  proves  too  much.  His  bow  outshoots  the 
mark. 

Nee  semper  feriet  quod  cunque  minabitur  arcus. 
Nor  always  will  the  bow,  though  fam'd  for  art, 
With  speed  unerring  wing  the  threatening  dart. 

I  pass  by  the  charges  which  Prof  S.  prefers  against  me 
in  p.  159  of  his  App.,  for  vehemence  in  accusing  "  those  who 
differ  from  me  as  to  Millennial  speculations,"  of  "  unfair- 
ness and  ^want  of  candour,"  of  "  wilfuHy  shutting  their 
eyes  against  the  light  of  truth,"  of  "  refusing  to  apply  the 
plainest  and  most  cogent  rules  of  interpretation,"  and  yet 
taking  myself  the  very  same  liberty  I  censure  in  them.  I 
have  done  no  such  thing,  and  challenge  him  to  the  proof, — 
even  the  miserable  constructive  proof  on  which  he  relies  ; 
averring  that  he  will  find  nothing  in  the  Dissertations  to 
support  such  accusations,  on  any  principles  of  construction 
that  obtain  among  candid  and  honourable  men.  Before, 
however,  I  notice  the  next  general  topic  in  his  strictures 
deserving  attention,  I  present  to  the  reader, 


CHAPTER  V. 


A  SPECIMEN  OF  PROF.  STUART  S  LOGIC. 


He  says,  pp.  159,  160,  "  Historic  reality  belongs  just  as 
much  to  the  spiritual  world,  as  it  does  to  the  material  and 
visible  world.  And  as  a  great  portion  of  prophecy,  beyond 
all  reasonable  question,  has  respect  to  the  moral  and  spiritual 
concerns  of  men,  so  we  may  very  rationally  believe,  that  a 
great  portion  concerns  the  moral  and  spiritual  world,  rather 
than  the  terrestrial  and  visible  one."  It  is  for  him  to  prove, 
by  other  arguments  than  such  sophistry,  that  prophecy 
refers  to  any  thing  exclusively  and  absolutely  spiritual, 
totally  disconnected  from  this  terrestrial  visible  world,  and  ^^ 
from  external  sensible  manifestations.  Because  a  great 
portion  of  it  relates  to  the  moral  and  spiritual  concerns  of 
men  dwelling  in  this  terrestrial  visible  world,  themselves 
part  and  parcel  of  it,  it  does  not  follow  that  therefore  it 
belongs  exclusively  to  "  the  world  of  mind,"  and  does  not 
find  its  fulfilment  on  this  terrestrial  visible  globe, — unless 
indeed,  he  can  show  that  men  are  no  part  of  this  world, 
mere  spirit, — and  that  their  moral  actions  and  interests  are 
not  as  really  and  truly  mixed  up  with,  or  embodied  in, 
external  sensible  transactions  as  in  mere  intellectual  ratio- 
cinations. Had  he  done  so  there  would  have  been  more 
appearance  of  logic,  in  this  his  grand  conclusion,  than  at 
present.  But  the  manner  in  which  he  shifts  the  meanings 
of  his  terms,  and  brings  out  his  conclusion  without  any 
show  of  equilibrium,  or  balancing  of  import,  or  comparing 
between  the  subject  and  predicate,  by  his  middle  term, 
would  deserve  and  receive  rebuke  were  it  the  production  of 
a  youth  exhibited  to  his  professor.     His  argument  reduced 

8* 


/^ 


52 

to  syllogistic  form,  with  its  terms  specifically  stated — accord- 
ing to  his  own  meaning,  runs  thus : 

TVhatever  belongs  exclusively  to  the  world  of  mind — the 
immaterial,  invisible,  spiritual  state  of  existence,  independent 
of  any  external  sensible  manifestations — is  an  historic  reality 
capable  of  being  made  the  subject  of  prophecy. 

But  prophecy ,  at  least  a  great  portion  of  it,  has  respect  to 
the  moral  and  spiritual  concerns  of  men. 

Therefore  a  great  portion  of  prophecy  concerns  the  moral 
and  spiritual  world,  rather  than  the  terrestrial  and  visible 
one,  Cluod  erat  demonstrandum,  and  so  by  inference  first 
"  all  is  afoat  on  the  ground  of  Mr.  D."  I  protest  against 
being  overflown  and  launched  from  the  stocks  in  this  style. 
Professor  S.  may  find  himself  afloat  in  the  world  of  mind,  or 
between  it  and  the  world  of  matter,  in  some  balloon  of  his 
own  invention,  but  neither  do  my  principles  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  prophecy,  nor  my  exposition,  carry  me  out  of,  or 
beyond,  this  terrestrial  visible  world  as  the  proper  and  exclu- 
sive theatre  of  prophecy. 

In  review  therefore  of  this  whole  critique  of  Prof.  S.,  by 
means  of  his  definition  of  historic  reality,  and  of  his  attempt 
at  the  severest  censure,  I  have  been  forcibly  reminded  of  the 
fable  of  Phcedrus,  de  Vitiis  Hominum,  of  the  faults  of  men  : 

Peras  imposuit  Jupiter  nobis  duas  : 
Propriis  repletam  vitiis  post  tergum  dedit, 
Alienis  ante  pecus  supendit  gravera. 
Hac  re  videre  nostra  mala  non  possumus  ; 
Alii  simul  delinquunt,  censores  sumus. 

Jupiter  gave  to  every  man  a  sack, 

To  hold  his  faults  and  carry  on  his  back. 

Another  one  Jove  gave,  which  from  his  breast, 

Hung  heavy  with  his  neighbor's  faults  oppressed. 

On  this  account  man  never  can  behald 

His  own,  but  can  his  neighbor's  faults  unfold. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

A     SPECIMEN    OF    PROF.     STUART's    UNFAIRNESS    AND     SENSI- 
TIVENESS. 

J^  Passing  by,"  says  he,  "  several  inadvertencies  or  incor^ 
rednesses  in  his  statements  respecting  the  views  of  the 
spiritualists,  and  overlooking  some  seeming  7  attempts  secret' 
ly  ?  to  ally  them  with  the  skeptics,  who  expect  only  such  a 
golden  age  as  the  perfectibility  of  man  will  usher  in,  we 
come  at  once  to  the  very  essence  of  Mr.  D.'s  literalism." 
Such  insinuated  charges  may  pass  with  those  who  believe 
Prof.  S.  to  be  infallible,  or  who  concede  to  him  the  right  to 
pronounce  judgment  without  rendering  a  reason.  But  spe- 
cijications  are  demanded,  and  justice  requires  them  to  be 
given.  They  are  the  more  necessary,  too,  because,  in 
making  them,  he  might  possibly  unfold,  a  little  more  dis- 
tinctly than  he  has  done,  his  own  views,  that  form  the  stan- 
dard by  which  he  judges.  Let  him  attempt  to  particularize, 
and  he  will  find  more  difficulty  than  he  is  aware  of 

I  have  referred  to  authorities,  and  quoted  the  language 
of  those  who  have  expressed  the  more  common  and  popular 
views  of  the  Millennium.  If  Prof.  S.  accounts  them  inad- 
vertencies and  inaccuracies,  be  it  so.  The  matter  must  be 
adjusted  between  him  and  those  who  belong  to  the  same 
general  class  of  interpreters,  but  do  not  believe  just  as  he 
does.  I  refer  to  the  N.  Y.  Evangelist  and  other  periodicals, 
in  proof  of  some  of  the  disagreements  which  I  have  said  ex- 
ist among  spiritualists.  Prof  S.  dare  not  deny,  that  there 
are  various  shades  of  belief  among  them.  Does  he  mean  to 
charge  me  with  "  inadvertencies  and  incorrectnesses" 
merely  because  I  did  not  make  his  views  the  standard,  with 
which  to  compare  tj^.^ij^i^^on  prevailing  noti^tp  ^^th^ 


54>  A   SPECIMEN    OF    PROF.    STUARt's 

Millennium  1  I  prefer  Buck  as  authority  here.    At  best  this 
is  a  cowardly  method  of  attack,  just  like  the  Parthian's  : 

Miles  sagittas  et  celeretn  fugam 
Parthi. 

The  Parthian  soldier  ever  wise, 
Dans  his  arrow  and  quickly  flies. 

A  manly  accuser  would  have  made  his  specifications. 

And  as  to  my  secret  attempt  to  ally  the  spiritualists  and 
skeptics,  the  reader  will  judge,  when  I  state,  that,  so  far 
from  my  having  had  any  secret  design  of  this  sort,  Prof  S. 
has  not  even  hinted  at  the  true  object  of  the  general  out- 
line, which  I  have  given  of  the  two  systems  of  interpreta- 
tion in  the  particular  views  detailed.  This  was  to  unfold 
the  very  different  results  obtained  by  the  two  systems  of  in- 
terpretation. I  have  shown  that  both  the  spiritualist  and 
literalist  agree  in  certain  general  facts,  such  as  the  coming 
of  Christ,  the  resurrection  of  the  saints,  a  day  of  universal 
judgment,  a  Millennium  and  a  kingdom  of  glory  incon- 
ceivable and  eternal ;  but  that  "  they  differ  greatly  as  to 
the  import  of  these  facts,  and  the  time,  order,  and  manner 
of  their  occurrence."  See  Dissertations,  p.  150.  In  present- 
ing the  views  of  the  foimer,  I  notice  some  varieties  in  their 
belief,  and  further  show,  that,  adopting  the  very  same  sys- 
tem of  interpretation,  others,  such  as  Unitarians,  Universal- 
ists,  &/C.,  have  advanced  opinions  very  diverse  from  those 
reputed  orthodox. 

Prof  S.  displays  great  sensitiveness  at  this,  calling  it  a 
secret  attempt  to  ally  them.  Strange  sort  of  logic,  by  the 
by,  must  it  be  to  which  he  resorts  to  sustain  such  imagin- 
ings 1  But  what  must  have  been  his  sensitiveness  when  he 
learned,  as  he  has  by  this  time,  that  on  the  basis  of  his  **  Hints 
on  the  Interpretation  of  Prophecy,"  some  Universalists  have 
congratulated  themselves  on  his  approximation  to  them,  and 
to  their  way  of  explaining  the  Scriptures?     The  "Univer- 


UNFAIRNESS  AND  SENSITIVENESS.  55 

salist,"  a  paper  published  in  Connecticut,  supporting  thei 
doctrine  of  universal  salvation,  says,  after  the  most  extrava?! 
gant  panegyric,  "  really  we  were  not  prepared  to  expect  that 
he  (Prof  S.)  could  take  such  liberal,  and  even  Univer salist 
grounds,  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  defend  them, 
with  such  openness  and  boldness,  as  he  has  done,  in  the  work 
before  us  (viz.  Hints,  &c.).  We  do  not  say  it,  for  the  sake 
of  saying  it — we  say  it  because  we  believe  it  is  true,  when 
we  affirm  that  the  "  Hints  on  the  Interpretation  of  Prophe- 
cy," if  received,  and  we  believe  they  must  be,  as  based  in 
truth,  will  produce  a  great  and  almost  total  change  in  the 
popular  interpretations,  not  only  of  the  prophetic  writings^ 
hut  of  the  whole  Scriptures,  and  that  this  change  will  lead 
men  to  favor,  if  not  to  agree  with,  the  views  which  Univer- 
salists  entertain  on  these  subjects.  Certain  we  are,  that 
Prof  Stuart,  in  this  work,  comes  nearer  to  Universalists,  in 
their  views  of  the  topics  discussed,  than  any  other  writer  of 
his  school  in  this  country,  and  that  he  has  taken  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  opposers  of  our  faith,  many  of  the  props  with 
which  they  are  endeavoring  to  keep  up  the  old  castle  which 
they  are  living  inJ'  When  I  wrote  the  chapter  which  has 
called  forth  the  indications  of  Prof  S.'s  sensitiveness,  his 
Hints  had  not  been  published,  so  that  I  could  not  have  had 
him  in  view,  nor  attempted  secretly  to  ally  him  with  the 
skeptics  or  Universalists.  And  indeed,  in  reading  his 
appendix,  I  was  surprised  at  his  charge ;  because,  though 
seeing  the  tendency  of  some  of  his  modes  of  interpretation 
and  exposition  in  the  Hints,  yet  suspecting  that  I  might  pos- 
sibly err  in  my  estimate  of  them,  by  reason  of  having  so 
recently  received  his  unmerciful  castigations,  I  feared  to 
allow  my  own  mind  to  trace  the  line  of  his  path,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  seeing  how  near  he  actually  did  approach  them.  My 
conscious  innocence  in  this  matter  made  me  the  more 
amazed,  but  my  surprise  and  amazement  have  all  ceased. 
The  reason  and  occasion  of  his  sensitiveness  are  now  appa- 


56         A    SPECIMEN  OF  PROF.  STUAET*S   UNFAIRNESS,  ETC. 

rent.     His  grievous  complaints  against  me  are  now  intel- 
ligible. 

Cluid  tristes  querimonise 

Si  non  supplicio  culpa  reciditur'? 

But  wherefore  does  he  thus  complain 

If  Justice  wears  her  awful  sword  in  vainl 


CHAPTER  VII. 


INEXCUSABLE  ERRORS  IN  PROFESSOR  STUART  S  STATEMENT 
OF  THE  GRAND  OUTLINES  OF  THE  LITERAL  SYSTEM  OF  PRO- 
PHETIC  INTERPRETATION. 

1.  He  has  studiously  avoided  all  statement  of,  or  allusion 
to,  the  great  point  at  issue  between  the  Spiritualist  and  the 
Millenarian,  and  which  gives  shape  and  character  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  predictions,  relative  to  the  Millennium,  viz., 
whether,  according  to  prophecy,  it  is  a  New  Dispensation  as 
miraculously  to  be  introduced  by  God,  as  have  been  all  the 
former  dispensations  of  His  Grace  1  or  whether  it  is  to  be  a 
mere  expansion,  progressive  or  sudden,  and  improvement  of 
the  present  Evangelical  Dispensation,  by  the  universality  of 
the  extent  to  which,  and  the  increased  efficiency  with  which 
the  Gospel  shall  be  preached  ?  The  Spiritualists  ^cnera?/y, 
and  among  them  Professor  S.,  assert  the  latter ; — theMillen-  ^ 
arian  the  former. 

The  latter  denies,  that  the  commonly  received  and  ill-de- 
fined idea  of  the  day  of  judgment  being  exclusively  a  sim- 
ple judicial  trial — the  holding  of  a  grand  court  of  general 
assizes,  or  of  oyer  and  terminer  and  general  jail  delivery 
for  the  universe,  of  sinners  and  malefactors — is  the  scriptu- 
ral idea  of  the  day  of  judgment.  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
affirmed  that  the  scriptural  statements  on  the  subject,  inter- 
preted by  the  established  rules  of  exegesis — which  prohibit 
any  preconceived  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  thing — set  forth 
the  day  of  judgment  as  a  Dispensation  which  shall  be  intro- 
duced by  the  personal,  visible  presence  of  God,  as  literally, 
and  really,  and  visibly  on  this  terrestrial  globe,  as  ever  was  y 
the  Paradisiac,  Adamic,  or  Antediluvian,  Patriarchal,  Sinai-// 
tic,  or  Evangelical  dispensations  before  it.     This  I  have  dis- 


58  INEXCUSABLE    ERRORS    IN 

tinctly  brought  into  view,  when  giving  the  general  outline 
of  the  two  systems  of  interpretation  referred  to. 

/  Prof  S.  has  not  done  the  Millenarian  views  of  Bible 
truth  here,  the  justice  even  to  drop  a  hint  on  this  point. 
On  the  contrary,  he  has  assumed  two  ideas,  both  of  which, 
I,  in  common  with  others,  deny,  and  the  proof  of  which  I 
demand  at  his  hands,  viz.,  1.  That  the  Millennium  is  but 
the  enlarged  prosperity  and  improved  condition  of  the  moral 
and  spiritual  world,  by  means  only  of  the  present,  though 
extended,  instrumentalities,  institutions,  and  influences  of  a 
preached  gospel.  2.  That  the  day  of  judgment  is  merely  a 
short  and  limited  season  for  the  exercise  of  Heaven's  judi- 
ciary powers  in  passing  sentence  on  the  character  and  con- 
duct of  each  individual  of  the  human  race,  and  disparting 
or  dissevering  mankind,  absolutely,  entirely,  and  eternally 
from  any  material  world  whatever,  especially  the  redeemed 
of  the  Lord.  Every  thing  I  have  stated  relative  to  the  Mil- 
lenarian views  of  the  day  of  judgment  being  a  new  and 
glorious  dispensation  of  Heaven's  rule  or  dominion,  in  and 
during  which  other  than  judiciary  powers  will  be  exercised, 
he  has  most  carefully  shunned,  and  refused  to  declare.  He 
can  tell  whether  it  was  for  this  purpose  he  has  abridged,  as 
he  hints,  the  statement.  He  says  *'  abridged,"  that  he  may 
"  give  as  briefly  as  may  be,  the  leading  features  of  it."  But 
I  say,  that  so  far  from  this  being  correct,  he  has  contrived 
to  exclude  the  grand  leading  and  essential  feature  alto- 
gether— the  very  point  on  which  the  issue  turns,  between 
the  system  he  advocates,  and  the  Millenarian  views  of 
Bible  truth. 

^  2.  He  has  stated  ideas  to  have  been  asserted  by  me,  which 
he  will  not  find,  either  directly,  or  by  fair  implication,  in 
any  thing  I  have  written,  nor  in  the  Millenarian  writers  to 
whom  I  have  referred.  From  all  appeal  to  them,  however,  he 
is  cut  off.  His  concern  is  with  me ;  and  I  charge  him  with 
having,  without  foundation,  attributed  sentiments  to  me, 


PROF.  Stuart's  statement.  dw 

which  I  have  nowhere  expressed,  I  do  not  mean  to  im- 
peach his  veracity,  as  though  he  would  knowingly  do  such  a 
thing  ;  but  he  has  unwittingly  done  me  this  injustice.  He 
is  concerned  to  account  for  it,  and  not  I,  that  he  may  yet 
retain  the  confidence  of  his  readers  in  him  as  a  reviewer 
and  reporter. 

Under  the  head  (9)  p.  161  of  App.  he  makies  me  to  teach 
**  that  nations  will  be  born  in  a  day,  by  means  of  the  saints 
who  reign  at  Jerusalem.'^  I  have  done  no  such  thing, 
directly  or  impliedly,  but  referred  this  result  to  "  the  abun- 
dant and  mighty  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God" — His 
*' powerful  effusions," — and  stated  that  the  fact  of  their  new 
birth  would  evidence  itself,  "  by  their  thorough  conversion," 
and  by  their  "  cordial  submission  to  the  dominion  of  Heaven 
by  means  of  the  saints.^"*  Surely  he  did  not  mean  to  per- 
vert my  language  at  this  rate,  as  though  in  affirming  "  the 
dominion  of  Heaven  by  means  of  the  saints,"  I  taught 
**  that  nations  will  be  born  in  a  day  by  means  of  the  saints 
who  reign  at  Jerusalem  !  1  ! 

Under  head  (10)  he  has  represented  me  as  teaching  it  to 
be  part  of  the  Millenarians'  faith,  *'  that  the  risen  and  glo- 
rified saints,  in  the  new  metropolis  (he  means  the  earthly 
Jerusalem),  will  be  kings  and  priests  for  the  administration 
of  the  political  and  religious  interests  of  the  (Jewish)  na- 
tion." I  have  not  done  so.  I  have  taught  that  the  raised 
saints,  according  to  the  Millenarians'  views  of  the  prophe- 
cies are  the  governmental  agencies,  who  shall  be  employed 
for  the  administration  of  the  political  and  religious  interests 
of  the  nations.  By  a  misprint  of  the  singular  for  the  plu- 
ral (which  the  context  will  clearly  show  is  what  must  have 
been  intended).  Prof  S.  having  totally  misapprehended  what 
I  had  previously  said,  might  naturally  have  supposed  that 
I  meant  the  Jevvish  nation  pre-eminently  or  exclusively,  and 
that  therefore  the  raised  saints  must  have  their  abode  in 
*'  the  new  metropolis"  of  Jerusalem,  as  he  calls  it. 


60  INEXCUSABLE   ERRORS,    ETC. 

I  may  here  take  occasion  to  say,  that  there  are  various 
typographical  errors  which,  owing  to  the  circumstances  un- 
der which  the  Dissertations  were  published,  escaped  correc- 
tion, either  when  passing,  through  the  press  or  in  an  errata- 
sheet  afterward,  but  which  I  regarded  so  trivial  as  to  be 
capable  of  being  corrected  by  the  intelligent  reader  himself. 
But  conceding  to  Prof.  S.  all  the  advantage  which  he  may 
claim  from  the  use  of  the  singular  instead  of  the  plural,  no- 
thing that  I  have  written  authorizes  him  to  represent  me,  as 
giving  the  raised  saints  their  local  dwelling  in  the  earthly 
Jerusalem,  the  new  metropolis,  to  be  inhabited  by  the  de- 
scendants of  Jews  in  the  flesh.  If  he  knows  not  and  I 
have  said  not  where  the  raised  saints  will  dwell  with  Christ, 
or  what  will  be  the  site  of  the  heavenly  city,  that  is  no 
reason  why  he  should  put  them  in  Jerusalem. 

In  the  sketch  which  he  has  "  abridged"  he  shows  that  he 
may  claim  the  merit  of  having,  in  some  sort,  profited  by  the 
hints  which  Horace  has  given  the  writer,  who,  to  be  successful, 
should  imitate  Homer  and  hurry  to  the  object  he  has  in 
view,  or  the  impression  he  would  make,  by  dexterously 
leaving  out  this  and  falsely  introducing  that,  so  as  to  give 
the  whole  the  greatest  effect. 

Semper  ad  evenlum  festinat,  et  in  medias  res, 
Non  secus  ac  notas,  audilorem  rapit,  et  quae 
Desperat  tractata  nitescere  posse,  relinquit ; 
Atque  ita  mentitur,  ni  veris  falsa  reraiscet, 
Primo  ne  medium,  medio  ne  discrepet  imam. 

But  to  the  grand  event  he  speeds  his  course, 
And  bears  his  readers  with  resistless  force 
Into  the  midst  of  things,  while  every  line 
Opens,  by  just  degrees,  his  whole  design. 
Artful  he  knows  each  circumstance  to  leave 
v;  Which  will  not  grace  and  ornament  receive ; 

Then  truth  and  fiction  with  such  skill  he  blends, 
That  equal  he  begins,  proceeds  and  ends. 


CHAPTER  vra.    Nfc^ZrS^p^.^^. 

PROF.  S.'S    REMARKS    ABOUT    THE    AUTHORITY  OF  THE   FATHEHS.'"''''^ 

He  either  thinks,  or  evidently  designed  to  make  the  im- 
pression, that  I  have  brought  forward  the  wildest  conceits, 
which  can  have  no  show  of  warrant  for  them  in  the  word  of 
God,  and  have  therefore  neglected  to  make  any  reference  to 
the  Scriptures  for  them,  but  have  resorted  to  a  very  appro- 
priate source — the  "patristic  writings,"  as  he  calls  them, 
whence  any  thing,  however  visionary  and  absurd,  may  find  its 
counterpart.  "  The  unprejudiced  and  simple  reader,"  he 
says,  "  will  probably  inquire,  with  some  amazement  :  What 
can  be  brought  now  from  the  Scriptures  in  support  of  such 
stupendous  arrangements  as  these  ?  Who  lean  satisfy  us 
about  occurrencfes  (?)  which  would  seem  to  lie  beyond  any 
region  reached  by  the  loftiest  or  the  most  vagarious  flight 
that  the  imagination  of  man  has  ever  taken  or  can  take  ?" 
App.  p.  163. 

Here  are  two  questions  to  which  I  am  very  happy  to  give 
plain  and  direct  answers.  Prof  S.  could  not  but  have 
learned,  that  I  intended  not,  and  did  not  propose,  to  enter 
into  a  scriptural  investigation  of  any  of  the  points  in  detail 
embraced  in  the  outline  which  he  has  abbreviated.  I  stated 
on  the  162d  page  of  the  Dissertations,  the  general  views  I 
entertained  myself,  no  farther  than  what  I  proposed  in  the 
volume  to  confirm  by  Scripture.  At  a  future  period,  the 
details  might  undergo  investigation  by  the  aid  of  Scripture. 
I  am  not,  therefore,  to  be  charged  with  visionary  specula- 
tions, unsupported  by  Scripture,  because  I  have  neither 
myself  affirmed  them,  nor  attempted  to  prove  them  from 
Scripture,  in  the  volume  published,  but  only  stated  some  of 
the  points  or  facts  believed  to  be  taught  in  prophecy  by  dif- 
ferent Millenarian  writers  who  had  pursued  their  investiga- 
tions farthest,  giving  at  the  same  time  their  names,  and 


62 

those  of  their  works  which  the  curious  or  interested  reader 
might  consult.  Has  Prof.  S.  read  them  ?  He  certainly 
ought  to  have  done  so  before  he,  a  biblical  instructor,  asked, 
as  though  the  thing  were  impossible  and  incredible,  what 
could  be  brought  from  the  Scriptures  in  support  of  such 
*'  stupendous  arrangements ;"  stupendous  as  indeed  they  are. 
He  will  see,  if  he  consults  them,  what  can  be  produced. 

He  is  not  at  liberty  to  assume  the  impossibility  of  there 
being  any  source  of  information  on  such  points.  Admitting, 
to  the  fullest  extent  of  his  meaning,  that  these  things  origin- 
ally lie  "  beyond  any  region  reached  by  the  loftiest  and 
most  vagarious  flight  that  ihe  imagination  of  man  has  ever 
taken,  or  can  (unaided)  take ;"  if  God  has  aided  their  minds, 
and  predicted  by  the  mouth  of  the  prophets,  that  these  or 
such  like  stupendous  events  and  scenes  shall  take  place, 
here  in  this  world,  in  the  progress  of  its  history  and  of  the 
scheme  of  redemption,  will  Prof.  S.  dare  impertinently  to 
inquire,  "  Who  can  satisfy  us  about  such  occurrences  ?" 
A  God,  of  omniscience  and  infallible  prescience,  can  do  it, 
and  do  it  perfectly.  The  only  questions,  at  all  appropriate, 
are.  Has  He  so  spoken  ?  Does  His  language  by  the  pro- 
phets, when  fairly  and  truly  interpreted,  lead  the  mind  to 
such  conceptions?  and  was  it  meant  to  do  so? 

This  I  have  said  is  a  fair  and  legitimate  topic  for  investi- 
gation, and  imperiously  demanding  it  The  Christian  public 
will  no  longer  be  put  off  by  the  dogmas  of  the  schools,  the 
dicta  of  professors,  the  decretals  of  the  Sorbonne,  or  any 
other  theological  authorities.  The  demand  is  made,  and 
expressed  in  a  thousand  directions  :  Let  us  have  the  Bible 
testimony  on  this  subject  plainly  and  faithfully  interpreted. 
Let  us  have  God's  word  and  not  man's  philosophy.  I  hold 
that  it  behoves  us  to  meet  the  demand.  If  we  have  assumed 
things  that  are  denied,  and  affirmed  to  be  incapable  of 
proof,  we  are  bound  to  investigate  them,  and  to  see  whether 
they  can  be  supported  by  solid  argument.     If  our  interpre- 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  6^ 

tations  of  Scripture  have  been  contrary  to  the  sound  and 
stable  rules  of  interpretation,  let  us  correct  them ;  but  not 
claim,  on  the  authority  of  names  or  schools,  professors  or 
synods,  to  teach  what  we  cannot  by  sober,  just,  and  veri- 
table exposition,  show  to  be  the  word  of  God. 

I  apply  the  remark  to  the  Fathers  also,  and  admit  with 
Prof  S.,  to  the  fullest  extent,  all  that  he  says  about  the 
character  of  much  of  their  exposition  of  the  Scriptures, 
"  the  double-sense  exegesis  which  they  had  been  taught  to 
apply  to  Homer,  and  Pindar,  and  others ;  all  the  mysticism 
which  they  brought  with  them  from  the  heathen  schools," 
"  their  conceits  and  puerilities,"  &c.  &c.  He  need  not  on 
this  subject  have  waxed  so  wrathy,  and  threatened  so  mar- 
vellously. Such  expressions  as  the  following  are  by  no 
means  in  good  taste ;  nor  do  they  add  any  dignity  to  the 
Professor.  "  But  one  thing  I  have  to  say — and  I  wish  them 
to  mark  it  well — let  them  be  careful  now  they  challenge  the 
proof  oi^  my  assertions.  I  have  read  with  my  oion  eyes.  I 
judge,  therefore,  for  myself  I  can  prove  to  any  reasonable 
man,  what  I  affirm."  App.  p.  165.  On  reading  these  terrific 
coniminations  I  could  not  but  think  of  Homer's  enraged 
Achilles  : 

€1  5'  aye  int^Vj  Tteigrjaaif  ha  yv^coai  xal  o'lbs' 
Alxpd  zoi  aif^a  neXaivov  SQcorjaei  neqi  dovQi. 

Bullet  this  first  invasion  be  the  last: 

For  know,  thy  blood,  when  next  thou  dost  invade, 

Shall  stream  in  vengeance  from  my  reeking  blade. 

Professor  S.  has  admitted,  notwithstanding  his  gascon- 
ade, all  I  wish  or  ask  from  him  to  sanction  the  use  that  I 
have  made  of  the  Fathers.  "  They  were,"  he  says,  '*  at 
least  many  of  them,  men  of  good  faith,  creditable  witnesses 
of  facts ;  worthy  of  deference  even  as  to  opinions,  when 
their  superstitions  and  their  visionary  fancies  were  out  of 
the  question.     Whoever  despises  them,  or  disregards  their 


64>  PROF.  Stuart's  remarks  about  the 

testimony  as  to  simple  matters  of  fact,  shows  himself  plainly 
to  be  a  prejudiced  or  an  unskilful  judge. '^  -^PP-  l^^.  I 
have  quoted  them  not  as  authority,  not  in  support  of  opin- 
ions, not  even  disproof  oi  Millenarian  views  of  prophecy,  but 
in  proof  of  "  the  views  entertained  by  the  early  Fathers,  (in 
which  they)  expressed  their  understanding  of  the  Scriptures 
on  this  subject,  (viz.  of  Christ's  pre-millennial  advent,)  and 
as  valuable  historical  testimony  as  to  their  principles  of  in- 
terpretation." Prof.  S.  has  done  me  injustice  in  intimating 
that  I  have  referred  to  them  for  "  their  interpretations  of 
prophecies  which  were  dark."  I  have  done  no  such  thing. 
I  have  cited  them  as  witnesses  in  relation  to  this  point  of 
fact,  whether  the  faith  of  the  Church,  in  the  apostolic  days, 
and  in  the  first  and  beginning  of  the  second  centuries, — 
when  it  is  confessed  on  all  hands  that  it  was  far  less  per- 
verted and  polluted,  by  a  double-sense  exegesis,  and  a  mys- 
ticism brought  from  the  heathen  schools,  than  towards  the 
close  of  the  second,  and  in  the  third  and  subsequent  cen- 
turies,— did  or  did  not  embrace  the  personal,  visible,  pre- 
millennial  advent  of  Jesus  Christ.  I  suppose  Prof.  S.  would 
admit  it  to  be  a  perfectly  legitimate  inquiry,  whether  the 
faith  of  the  Primitive  Church,  in  the  same  period,  embraced 
the  justification  of  the  sinner  by  faith  in  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law.  Where  is  there 
greater  impropriety  in  the  former  than  in  the  latter  in- 
quiry ?  And  what  condemns  the  evidence  of  their  testimony, 
more  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other  ? 

If  Prof.  S.  means  to  say  that  I  have  appealed  to  tradition 
as  ''  the  most  convenient  of  all  possible  methods  of  arguing," 
and  like  any  and  every  sect  and  enthusiast  which  "  find  some 
prototype  among  the  ancients,"  have  gone  to  the  Fathers 
for  mine,  he  charges  me  unjustly  and  without  show  of  evi- 
dence. He  says,  "  I  have  observed,  specially  of  late  years, 
in  my  reading,  that  those  always  seem  to  rely  most  heartily 
upon  the  Fathers  who  feel  themselves  to  be  most  deficient  in 


AITTHaRITY    OF   THE    FATHERS.  65 

the  power  of  establishing  any  thing  directly  from  the  Scrip- 
tures. So  did  not  the  first  Protestants."  Has  he  forgotten 
that  Luther  made  his  appeal  to  the  Fathers,  and  did  it  most 
invincibly  in  his  dispute  with  Eckius,  in  reference  to  the 
faith  of  the  primitive  church  ?  I  admit  the  sufficiency  of 
the  Scriptures,  as  **  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice ;"  but  I  deem  it  to  be  interesting,  important,  valua- 
ble information,  to  know  what  was  the  faith  of  the  Fathers 
and  Martyrs,  and  those  holy  men  that  lived  nearest  the  days 
of  the  apostles — i.  e.  what  they  embraced,  not  as  opinion, 
but  as  facts  revealed  to  our  faith. 

-*'  I  have  carefully  discriminated,  as  Prof  S.  might  have 
seen,  see  Dissertations,  p.  174,  **  between  what  were  mat- 
ters of  faith,  simple  statements  of  their  belief  founded  on 
the  word  of  God — and  what  were  conjectures,  and  opi- 
nions founded  on  their  inferences."  Now  having  been  so 
careful  to  define  my  object,  in  referring  to  what  I  called 
**  traditionary  history,'^  not  .  "  traditionary  authority^'  or 
opinions,  and  having  as  carefully  distinguished  between 
.tnere  matters  of  conjecture,  and  the  faith  of  the  church,  I 
cannot  account  for  the  obliquity  of  Prof  S.'s  apprehensions, 
in  undertaking  to  represent  me  as  giving  "  with  no  very 
sparing  hand,  extracts  from  a  number  of  the  Fathers ;" 
taking,  **  for  the  most  part,  what  he  finds  selected  for  a 
purpose  like  his  own,  and  leaving  out  what  he  would  not 
wish  to  bring  forward."  I  have  hard  work  to  muster  up 
charity  enough  to  prevent  me  from  giving  a  plain  name  to 
such  representations.  Were  I  alone  with  him  I  should  do 
it  in  the  application  of  the  Saviour's  rule,  and  demand 
Christian  satisfaction.  I  have  affirmed,  and  referred  to  the 
Fathers  in  proof  of  the  historical  fact,  that  the  faith  of  the 
primitive  church  embraced  the  personal,  visible  pre-millen- 
nial  coming  of  Jesus  Christ ; — that  there  is  not  one  of  the 
early  Fathers  whose  works  are  extant,  and  who  have  ex- 
pressed their  views  or  faith  on  the  subject  of  the  Millennium 


66  PROF.  Stuart's  remarks  about  the 

and  of  Christ's  second  coming,  who  have  not  so  stated  it — or 
by  fair  implication  assumed  it ; — and  that  none  of  the  Fathers, 
yea,  none  down  till  after  the  Reformation — however  differ- 
ing from  the  Chiliasts,  by  which  name  a  numerous  class  of 
writers  were  called,  many  of  whom  sensualized  the  faith  of 
the  primitive  church, — ever  advanced,  for  all  that  I  can 
ascertain,  the  idea  of  such  a  Millennium  as  Prof  S.  and 
those  of  his  opinion  adopt,  until  about  the  days  of  Whitby, 
who  gave  it  as  a  new  hypothesis, — whether  having  excogi- 
tated it  himself,  or  suggested  by  Spener's  '^  Hope  of  better 
times  to  come,"  and  the  controversy  with  Pfeiffer  and  Neu- 
man,  I  will  not  inquire.  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  picking 
out,  and  leaving  this  or  the  other  opinion  of  this  or  the 
other  Father,  on  any  subject.  I  was  only  concerned  with 
their  evidence  as  witnesses,  to  the  faith  of  the  church.  If  I 
have  incorrectly  quoted  them  ;  if  I  have  not  stated  the  facts 
,,as  they  are ;  and  if,,  in  one  or  two  cases,  where  the  evidence 
I  admit  was  "  rather  of  the  constructive  kind,"  I  have  not 
rightly  construed  the  meaning, — let  Prof  S.  show  it. 

In  view  of  the  object  I  proposed  therefore  by  the  testimony 
of  the  Fathers,  the  reader  will  be  able  to  form  a  correct 
judgment  of  Prof.  S.'s  candour  and  spirit,  when  after  hav- 
ing given  a  list  of  names,  and  having  stated  what  I  have 
done  myself  in  pursuing  the  chain  of  testimony, — that  some 
have  left  behind  them  no  certain  relics  of  their  writings, 
he  says,  "  All  these  are  made  by  Mr.  D.  to  give  testimony 
in  favour  of  his  cause;  or  (which  he  seems  to  regard  as 
being  equally  in  his  favour)  they  did  not  give  testimony 
against  it.  In  this  way  he  goes  on  till  he  comes  down  to  a 
later  age."  App.  p.  166.  This  is  mere  caricature,  totally  un- 
becoming Prof  S. 

But  what  follows  is  even  worse  :  "  Nor,"  adds  he,"  does 
he  omit,  even  here  (  i.  e.  in  a  later  age),  to  trace  out  his 
traditionary  history.  But  the  Fathers  who  were  opposed  to 
the  Millennial  views  in  question — Origen,  Dionysius  of  Alex- 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  67 

andria,  Jerome,  Augustine,  and  indeed  most  of  the  other 
distinguished  Fathers — he  slips  over  with  slight  notices,  or 
•with  some  little  effort  either  to  make  them  indirectly  con- 
tribute to  his  purpose,  or  else  to  parry  the  force  of  their 
strokes  and  diminish  the  value  of  their  opinions."  App.  p. 
166.     This  is  injustice  and  misrepresentation.  ^y 

In  tracing  the  history  of  the  faith  of  the  church,  relative 
to  the  coming  of  Christ  and  the  Millennium,  I  have  said,  that 
the  evidence  is  direct  and  strong  in  the  first  two  centuries, 
that  it  embraced  the  fact  of  the  personal,  visible,  pre-mil- 
lennial  coming  of  Christ — that  toward  the  close  of  the 
second  century  there  grew  up  a  style  of  interpretation  which 
seriously  affected  the  unity  and  simplicity  of  the  church's 
faith,  and  the  philosophical  exposition  of  the  Scriptures  ; — 
that  this  style  of  exposition  may  be  detected  first  in  Pautce- 
nus,  "  the  Stoic  philosopher,"  Clemens  of  Alexandria  his 
pupil,  Justin  martyr  and  others  until  Origen,  who  gave  form 
and  system  to  what  I  have  called  the  spiritual  or  allegorical, 
in  opposition  to  the  literal  system  of  interpretation  ; — that 
from  that  time  forth  the  Millenarian  faith  began  to  disappear, 
from  causes  which  I  have  stated,  especially  through  the  influ- 
ence of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  the  disciple  of  Origen, 
having  quoted  Eusebius  and  Mosheim  in  proof  of  my  state- 
ments ; — that  two  conspicuous  opposers  of  this  faith  were 
Caius  and  Dionysius,  the  former  rejecting  the  Apocalypse 
altogether,  and  the  latter,  according  to  Eusebius'  showing, 
virtually,  if  not  formally,  doing  the  same  thing ; — that  just 
as  long  as  the  primitive  church  retained  her  greatest  simpli- 
city of  faith,  the  personal  pre-millenial  coming  of  Christ  was  ^ 
one  of  the  items  of  her  belief; — that  the  very  first  evidences 
of  dissent  from  this  faith  appeared,  among  those  who  attempt- 
ed to  unite  philosophy  with  Christianity  ;  and  that  after  pre- 
judices had  been  excited  against  it  by  the  gross  sensual  gloss, 
which  certain  heretics  had  given  to  the  Millennium,  so  direct- 
ly at  variance  with  the  Gnostic  philosophy,  its  first  opposers. 


68 

more  successfully  to  overcome  it,  denied  the  canonical  author- 
ity of  the  Apocalypse.  Notwithstanding  all  this,  I  have 
shown  also  that  traces  of  this  faith  are  to  be  met  with  in 
subsequent  ages,  and  even  in  the  writings  of  those  M^ho  op- 
posed the  sensual  Chiliasm  of  the  heretical  Cerinthus,  and 
others. 

As  to  to  the  '*  opinions''  of  Origen,  Dionysius  of  Alexan- 
dria, Jerome,  Augustine,  &c.,  they  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  simple  matter  of  fact  I  was  stating  about  the  faith  of  the 
primitive  church,  in  reference  to  the  coming  of  Christ  and 
the  Millennium,  and  the  occasion  and  manner  of  departure 
from  it  when  the  church  became  corrupted  by  philosophy 
and  vain  deceit,  and  an  allegorical  style  of  interpreting  the 
sacred  Scriptures.  It  is  utterly  in  vain  for  Prof  S.  to  at- 
tempt to  condemn  me  for  not  giving  the  views  and  opinions 
of  those  who  were  "  opposed,"  he  says,  "  to  the  millennial 
views  in  question,"  (of  course  he  means  the  personal,  pre- 
millennial  coming  of  Christ,)  but  I  say,  to  the  sensual  Chiliasm 
of  Cerinthus,  &C.,  often  confounded  with  the  primitive  faith. 
Their  opinions  on  many  subjects  were  vague  and  ill  defined. 
I  had  no  concern  with  them  as  an  historian  ;  nor  did  the 
nature  and  structure  of  my  argument  require  that  I  should 
even  state  them.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  say,  as  I  did,  that 
the  common  prevailing  notions  of  the  Millennium,  in  a  season 
of  great  moral  and  spiritual  improvement,  and  of  glorious  pros- 
perity to  the  church  of  God  for  a  thousand  years  before  the 
coming  of  Jesus  Christ,  was  no  part  of  the  faith  of  the  pri- 
mitive church,  nor  of  the  church  for  centuries,  nor  even  of 
the  men  whose  opinions  Prof  S.  represents  me  as  studiously 
and  artfully  attempting  to  conceal.  I  challenge  him  to  show 
the  contrary  to  be  the  fact  in  the  period  referred  to,  or  any 
proof  of  a  spiritual  Millennium  like  his  own  for  centuries  af- 
terward. 

My  reference  "  to  the  Jewish  Rabbles,  and  even  to  the 
Zend-Avesta,  and  my  remarks   as  to  the  style  of  speech 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  €9 

adopted  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  Professor  S.  has  also 
wholly  misrepresented,  by  concealing  their  true  and  avowed 
design.  I  stated  that  the  plain  grammatical  interpretation 
of  the  prophecies,  especially  of  Daniel,  gave  rise  to  such  an 
idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  that  which  Millenarians,  from 
the  promises  and  predictions  of  Scripture,  expect  at  the  visi- 
ble, personal,  pre-millennial  coming  of  Jesus  Christ; — that 
such  an  idea  actually  did  start  in  the  world,  cotemporane- 
ously  with  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  and  may  be  traced 
down  through  two  channels  :  First,  the  Jewish  traditions 
and  the  rabbinical  writings  expressing  the  faith  of  the 
Jewish  church ;  and  second,  the  corruptions  of  Scripture 
and  plagiarism  to  be  traced  among  the  Gentiles ; — and  that 
while  the  Saviour  and  the  Apostles  adopted  the  very  same 
technical  expressions,  the  same  style  of  speech,  and,  in  the 
case  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  almost  the  identical  ideag  and  lan- 
guage of  the  tradition  of  the  house  of  Elias,  and  never  de- 
fined their  terms,  or  deemed  it  necessary  to  apprise  their 
hearers,  that  they  assigned  a  different  meaning  to  them  than 
what  they  imported,  according  to  the  plain  grammatical  sense, 
they  never,  in  one  solitary  instance,  so  taught  or  expressed 
themselves,  as  to  convey  the  idea  of  there  being  a  great 
period  of  one  thousand  years  of  spiritual  prosperity  in  reli- 
gion, and  the  church  of  God,  j^nor  to  Christ's  personal,  visi- 
ble, second  coming. 

Prof  S,  has  not  even  touched  or  hiiited  at  the  argument. 
AH  this  dust  and  mist  about  the  fathers'  crudities,  puerilities, 
&,c.  &c.,  ai-^  just  nothing  to  his  purpose.  The  question  is 
a  question  of  fact,  whether  the  primitive  church  did  not 
embrace  the  Millenarian  faith,  and  whether  they  did  not  do  so, 
on  the  basis,  not  of  superstition  and  puerile  conceits,  but  of 
Scripture  promises  and  predictions  received  and  understood 
upon  the  principles  of  grammatical  interpretation,  the  prin- 
ciples, in  other  words,  taught  and  sanctioned  by  Ernesti  and 
Prof.  S.  himself?     No  presiding  or  inspiring  genius  of  inter- 

5 


W  PROF.    STUART  S   REMARKS,    ETC. 

pretation,  at  Andover,  no  tutelary  god  or  saint,  that  may 
have  the  special  care  of  her  beloved  Professor,  will  be  allow- 
ed to  rescue  him  from  the  contest  here,  as  Homer's  Venus 
did  Paris  : 

'Peta  fidtf  i»6rs  ^sog  '  ixdlvxps  ^  aq  rjsQi  noll^. 

The  queen  of  love  her  favoured  champion  shrouds 
(For  gods|can  all  things)  in  a  veil  of  clouds. 


?t'(^''ii:-...t*if  ■  i.t% 


CHAPTER  IX. 


PROF.  STUART  S  STRICTURES  ON  THE  SCRIPTURAL  ARGUMENT. 

He  first  misstates  the  point  of  the  argument,  I  adduce 
from  the  Scriptures,  by  saying  that  it  is  brought  forward 
*'  in  favour  of  his  (my)  scheme" — the  reader  would  suppose  of 
course,  that  "  my  scheme"  embraced  all  that  he  has  exhib- 
ited of  the  general  outline.  Do  Prof  S.'s  dialectics,  and  his 
sense  of  justice  and  propriety,  admit  of  this?  The  argu-^ 
ment  is  expressly,  specifically,  and  avowedly  this, — that  the 
plain  principles  of  grammatical  interpretation,  applied  to  the 
prophetical  Scriptures,  prove  the  second  coming  of  Christ  to 
be  personal,  visible,  and  pre-millennial.  I  have  quoted  Acts 
iii.  20,  21,  and  stated  analytically  according  to  the  grammat- 
ical interpretation,  the  facts  which  the  verse  affirms,  totally 
irrespective  of  the  precise  import  of  certain  expressions  con- 
tained in  it,  whose  meaning  is  afterwards  to  be  determined. 
Prof  S.  has  not  denied  that  what  I  state  to  be  the  facts 
affirmed  in  these  verses  is  correct :  nor  will  he.  He  has, 
nevertheless,  misquoted  my  language.  For  what  purpose 
I  cannot  say  :  but  when  I  say,  referring  directly  to  what  I 
state  are  the  facts  asserted  in  Acts  iii.  20,  21,  as  follows  : 
*'  There  can  be  no  questioning  these  facts  by  any  one  who 
admits  as  truth — supported  by  sufficient  evidence — and 
receives  in  the  simplicity  of  faith  the  testimony  of  God," 
Dissertations  p.  269,  he,  by  leaving  out  certain  words  and 
parts  of  the  sentence,  makes  me  assert  in  general,  some- 
thing unintelligible,  viz  :  "■  Here,"  Mr.  D.  says,  ''  there  can 
be  no  questioning  of  facts  by  any  one  who  admits  as  truth 
.  .  .  the  testimony  of  God."     App.  p.  162. 

My  object  is  to  direct  attention,  pointedly  and  specifically, 
to  the  main  question  that  will  be  raised  from  this  passage 


72 


PROF.    STUART  S    STRICTURES    ON 


in  relation  to  the  facts  it  affirms,  by  those  who  believe  the 
Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God,  viz.,  what  will  be  the  time  of 
Christ's  coming,  so  far  as  this  passage  declares  it.  This 
was  the  question  proposed  to  be  disiMissed  ;  and  in  order  to 
answer  it,  by  the  aid  of  this  passage,  I  have  undertaken  a 
full  and  careful  philological  examination  of  its  terms.  Prof 
S.  would  blow  dust  into  the  reader's  eyes  at  the  very  outset, 
and  then  refuse  to  let  me  speak  for  myself,  by  misquoting 
and  garbling  my  language. 

Next  he  seeks  to  excite  prejudice,  both  against  me,  and 
especially  against  the  argument,  by  the  most  unwarrantable 
misstatement  and  perversion  of  my  language.  He  says,  "A 
little  further  on  he  remarks,  that  '  it  is  of  essential  conse- 
quence, if  possible,  to  enlist  this  text  in  favour  of  this  (his) 
view.^  "  My  language  is,  "  Of  course  it  is  of  essential  con- 
sequence, if  possible,  to  enlist  this  text  in  favour  of  this 
view,"  and  the  context  will  show  any  child  who  will  read  it, 
that  the  view  contemplated  was  not  mine,  for  I  had  not  sta- 
ted mine,  but  that  of  Mr  Faber,  and  the  author  of  "  Mo- 
dern Fanaticism  Unveiled,"  who  attempted,  by  criticisms,  one 
in  one  way,  and  another  in  another,  to  show  that  the  times 
of  restitution  spoken  of,  and  consequently  the  second  advent 
of  Christ,  do  not  occur  till  after  the  Millennium.  It  was  just 
the  opposite  view  of  mine.  I  will  not  say  what  I  think  of 
such  misrepresentation  and  perversion  of  my  language,  nor 
can  I  devise  an  excuse  for  him.  I  can  readily  see,  however, 
how  it  must  prejudice  the  reader's  mind,  who  takes  all  Prof 
S.  says  on  trust. 

His  third  attempt  is  to  put  me  down  by  his  "  ex  cathedra" 
condemnation,  for  "  mistakes  in  criticism^'  "  Without  ad- 
verting now  (and  I  may  add  ever  after)  to  the  various  mis- 
takes in  criticism  which  the  process  of  Mr.  D .' s  reasoning  here 
develojpes,"  (wonderfully  guarded,  obscure  and  ambiguous 
expression  !)  "it  is  enough  to  say,  that  every  thing  depends, 
of  course,  on  the  meaning  of  xQovoov  aTzoxataatdasoav,  ren- 


THE  SCRIPTURAL  ARGUMENT. 


n 


dered  in  our  version,  times  of  restitution  ;"  just  v/hat  I  have 
said.  ''  This  our  author  of  course  considers,  as  declaring  in 
favour  o^  his  views  o^  restitution^  i.  e.,  in  favour  of  the  trans- 
formation of  things  in  general  at  the  commencement  of  the 
Millennium."  App.  p.  168.  He  does  not  say,  as  a  matter  of 
veritable  fact,  that  I  have  made  mistakes  in  criticism,  but 
"  the  process  of  my  reasoning  has  developed  them  !"  Now, 
if  the  reader  will  turn  to  the  Dissertations,  pp.  271,  272,  he 
will  perceive,  that  I  have  introduced  the  criticism  of  the 
author  of  "  Fanaticism  Unveiled,"  who  finds  it  necessary  to 
give  a  meaning  to  the  adverb  a^iQi,  until,  that  will  corres- 
pond with  his  dating  of  the  times  of  restitution  after  tne 
Millennium.  I  do  but  vindicate  the  reading  of  the  English 
version,  and  the  plain,  popular  meaning  of  the  word  until. 
Professor  S.  does  not  say  whether  the  "mistakes  in  criti- 
cism" are  mine,  or  the  author's  I  refer  to.  He  is  very  cautious 
in  the  use  of  his  language.  If  he  means  that  the  mistakes 
are  mine,  it  behooved  him  to  point  them  out.  I  call  upon 
him  to  do  so,  and  to  explain,  if  he  dare,  the  passages  I  have 
quoted  and  referred  to,  according  to  the  criticism  I  have 
shown  to  be  fallacious.  If  he  means  that  the  "  mistakes  in 
criticism^'  are  those  of  the  author  of  "  Fanaticism  Unveil- 
ed," I  have  but  developed  them  in  the  process  of  my  argu- 
ment, as  he  states  ;  but  it  ill  becomes  him  to  write  with  such 
looseness  and  ambiguity,  and  virtually  take  advantage  of  his 
own  wrong,  to  make  his  reader  condemn  me,  as  though  he, 
the  great  critic  at  Andover,  had  detected  at  a  glance  my 
mistakes.  There  is  nothing  manly  in  this,  to  say  the  least. 
But  perhaps  he  refers,  also,  since  he  uses  the  plural,  to 
the  other  criticism,  which  "the  process  of  (my)  reasoning 
has  developed."  This  relates  to  the  meaning  of  the  Greek 
word  dTTOnaTaataaig,  translated  restitution.  The  criticism  is 
Mr.  Faber's,  who  says  that  the  word  denotes  not  "  the  act  of 
resettling  or  restoring  all  things,  but  the  completed  result J^ 
I  have  denied  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  de- 


14f  PROF. 

fended  the  plain  and  obvious  grammatical  import  of  the 
phrase  ."  times  of  restitution,"  which  is  the  time  or  season 
when  that  act  takes  place,  or  series  of  acts  which  com- 
mences the  specific  work  of  restoration.  Whether  he  means 
the  "  mistakes  in  criticism"  are  those  of  Mr.  Faber  or  my- 
self, he  has  prudently  left  doubtful.  It  would  have  been 
much  more  manly  to  have  spoken  out  plainly,  than  in  such 
a  covert  and  cowardly  manner  taken  all  the  advantage  he 
might  wish  against  me,  by  an  '^  ex  cathedra"  condemnation, 
exciting  prejudice  against  my  argument. 

As  to  the  simple  meaning  of  the  word  aTToyMtdaraaig, 
Professor  S.  agrees  with  me,  in  translating  it  restoration ; 
but  whether  restoration  in  the  sense  of  Mr.  Faber,  so  as  to 
include  the  final,  perfected  result — the  actual  accomplish- 
ment of  all  the  things  spoken  of  by  the  prophets,  or,  as  I 
have  said,  according  to  the  general  import  of  verbal  deri- 
vative nouns  formed  from  the  second  person  of  the  perfect 
passive,  the  act  or  process  o/*  restoration  of  all  things  spoken 
of  by  the  prophets,  which  should  be  the  date  of  the  com- 
mencement of  the  times  of  restitution,  he  has  not  conde- 
scended to  express  himself  Does  he  mean  that  this  is  *'  the 
mistakes'?"  He  admits  "  that  Peter  might  have  employed 
this  word,  in  case  he  had  believed  in  the  same  Millennium, 
which  is  advocated  by  Mr.  D."  Of  course  Professor  S.  is  • 
not  prepared  to  condemn  our  English  translation,  and  my 
defence  of  its  meaning,  by  reason  of  any  "  mistakes  in  criti- 
cism," which  /have  made  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  word 
dTtoxaTciataaig. 

But  Professor  S.  has  added  that  "  it  is  equally  plain  and 
true,  that  if  he  (Peter)  had  a  moral  and  spiritual  Millen- 
nium in  view,  he  might  appropriately  employ  it,  just  as  the 
apostle  (Rom.  xii.  2  :  Tit.  iii.  5)  speaks  of  the  renewing  of 
our  minds."  App.  p.  169.  That  is,  he  uses  the  word  met- 
aphorically ;  or,  if  Professor  S.  prefers  it,  analogically, 
about  which  import  of  words,  we  shall  have  more  to  say  in 


THE    SCRIPTURAL   ARGUMENT.  19 

the  sequel.  Now  it  is  important,  essential,  that  the  import 
of  Peter's  expressions,  should  be  definitely  settled.  Prof. 
S.  has  no  more  right  than  I  have,  by  general  reasonings  and 
a  priori  deductions,  or  preconceived  notions  of  the  nature  of 
things,  to  do  so.  The  Bible  here  must  be  its  own  inter- 
preter. 

The  simple  import  of  the  word  ano^iardataaig  I  will  admit, 
for  the  sake  of  argument,  will  not  do  it :  and  for  the  same 
reason  I  will  admit  further,  that  the  form  and  derivation  of 
the  word  may  not  definitely  and  absolutely  settle  its  meaning, 
so  far  as  to  determine  whether  it  denotes  the  act  and  process 
of  acts,  or  completed  result  and  accomplishment  of  the  res- 
toration of  all  things,  &/C.  I  might,  indeed,  in  support  of 
the  meaning  which  I  say  it  has,  agreeably  to  the  analogy  of 
Greek  terms  so  derived,  refer  Prof.  S.  to  Aristotle,  lib.  II. 
chap  3,  Rhetor.,  where  he  will  find  three  words  of  like  deri- 
vation, denoting  the  act  of  doing  :  and  as  he  may  plead  that 
naTaataoig  and  aTToyiaidazaaig  differ  in  their  shade  of  import, 
and  that  the  preposition  dno  here  gives  the  word  the  in- 
creased import  of  actual  accomplishment,  and  quote  Whitby 
and  Lightfoot,  as  authority,  I  might  refer  him  to  Matt.  xvii. 
11,  the  only  place  in  the  New  Testament  where  the  verb 
is  applied  by  Christ  to  John  the  Baptist,  "  Elias  indeed 
first  Cometh,  and  he  shall  restore  all  things — aTzoxaTaGz^aei 
Ttdvza — certainly  not  in  the  sense  of  accomplishment,  for  John 
the  Baptist  did  but  commence  the  publication  of  the  king- 
dom approaching,  and  introduce,  according  to  Prof  S.'s 
opinion,  those  new  moral  influences  which  were  to  issue  in 
the  transformation  or  restoration  of  all  things. 

But  let  this  pass  :  and  let  us  confine  our  attention  to  Pe- 
ter's own  language.  He  did  not  depend  alone  on  the  simple 
meaning  of  the  word  dnoaardaTaaig  to  express  his  idea. 
Prof.  S.  therefore  shall  not  resort  to  any  general  reasonings, 
or  theoretic,  philosophical,  or  preconceived  notion  of  the 
nature  of  things,  to  decipher  Peter's  meaning ;  especially. 


76  PROF.  Stuart's  strictures  on 

as  he  admits  the  word  *'  might"  mean  what  I  say  it  does, 
provided  Peter  had  intended  to  express  the  idea  which  I  say 
he  did.  Peter  has  given  us  two  clews  to  his  meaning.  First, 
whatever  the  restoration — act,  process  or  accomplished  result 
— may  be,  it  was  something  that  should  mark  or  characterize 
a  predicted  period  yet  future  in  Peter's  day.  "  And  he  shall 
send  Jesus  Christ,  which  before  was  preached  unto  you.  He 
?hall  send  to  you  this  (of  whom  he  had  spoken  v.  13)  Jesus 
Christ  previously  heralded-a;ro(yr£/ljy  r  or  TTQoy.BynqiGiiHOv  vfjin' 
'Irjaovv  Xqigtov — see  Winer's  Gram.,  pp.  89,  90 — whom  the 
heaven  must  receive  until  the  times  of  restitution  of  all  things, 
&c.,  aiQi  XQOvcov  aTToxataatdaeag,  6lc.  Prof  S.  knows, 
agreeably  to  the  just  remarks  of  Winer  in  his  Grammar,  pp. 
103,  106,  that  'j^Qormv,  the  times,  is  emphatic ; — a  definitely 
marked  period.  Now  Peter,  according  to  the  plain  and  na- 
tural and  grammatical  import  of  his  words,  says,  when  that 
period  arrived,  God  would  again  send  Jesus  Christ,  him  that 
had  been  previously  heralded;  for  the  adverb  a/^r  cannot  mean 
during,  according  to  the  criticism  I  have  shown  to  be  incor- 
rect and  untenable,  as  though  the  sending  of  Christ  would 
not  occur  till  afte?'  the  completed  result  of  the  restoration. 
Peter's  use  of  the  word  )^q6v(ov,  times,  proves  that  this  cannot 
be  his  meaning :  cixQi,  in  this  connection,  cannot  mean  either 
during,  or  till  after,  but  till  the  times,  that  is,  the  commence- 
ment of  them,  according  to  the  plain  and  ordinary  use  and 
import  of  the  adverb  in  such  connection. 

In  the  next  place,  Peter  has  given  us  a  second  clew  to  his 
meaning,  by  characterizing  the  times  to  which  he  referred^ 
as  those  in  which  would  eventuate  the  restoration  "  of  all 
things,  which  God  hath  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  all  his  holy 
prophets  since  the  world  began."  Just  as  we  talk  of  the 
times  of  the  reformation,  referring  to  that  whole  period  dur- 
ino-  which  the  measures  commenced,  and  were  prosecuted, 
which  secured  the  reformation  of  the  church,  so  Peter  has 
his  eye  on  certain  times  of  restoration,  that  is,  the  times  dur- 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    ARGUMENT.  77 

ing  which  those  act^  and  measures  should  occur,  which 
would  effectually  and  fully  restore  all  things — the  restoring 
times. 

Whether  the  relative  pronoun  which,  Ktv,  refers  to  yQovojv, 
the  times,  or  to  TZQaffidtoiv,  understood,  the  all  things,  I 
care  not  to  determine.  Prof  S.  may  interpret  it  either  way, 
as  he  pleases,  so  as  to  make  it  read  either  of  which  times  God 
hath  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets  since  the 
world  began,  clti  aiwvog,  from  the  beginning  of  the  age 
or  dispensation,  or  of  which  all  things  God  hath  spoken  by 
the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophets,  &c.  It  amounts  to  the  same 
thing  in  the  end,  take  it  either  way.  The  idea  is,  that  the 
times  of  restoration  would  be  characterized  by  the  actual 
accomplishment  of  all  the  things,  which  all  the  prophets  had 
said,  should  occur,  in  the  way,  or  work,  of  restoration. 

In  a  certain  sense,  all  the  measures  adopted  by  God, 
from  the  very  fall  of  Adam,  may  be  said  to  possess  this 
character ;  but  Peter  is  speaking  0)f  some  times  and  things 
beyond  his  day — things  yet  fiiture  when  he  spoke,  and  of 
which  all  the  prophets  had  predicted.  To  determine  what 
these  times  and  things  are,  we  are  referred  to  the  prophets ; 
not  to  this  or  the  other,  but  to  all.  They  are  times  and 
things  of  which  they  have  all  in  common  spoken.  I  have 
referred  to  passages  in  the  Scriptures  from  Noah  down, 
and,  to  quote  Jude,  I  might  say  from  Enoch  down,  to  prove, 
that  the  times  of  restitution, — especially  the  glorious  advent 
of  the  Lord  for  his  work  of  righteous  judgment,  and  resto- 
ration of  all  things  to  their  original  pure  and  happy  condi- 
tion,— have  been  spoken  of  by  all  the  prophets;  i.  e.,  suf- 
ficiently general  and  universal,  to  authorize,  according  to 
the  common  modes  of  speech,  such  language  as  Peter  uses. 
I  have  done  so  to  ascertain  Peter's  meaning  according  to 
the  clew  he  has  himself  given  to  it ;  and  yet  Prof  S.  in  the 
most  sneering  and  contemptuous  manner,  without  even 
attempting  to  disprove,  in  one  instance,  the  general  point 

5* 


78  PROF. 

for  which  the  references  were  made, ^ or  to  expose  their  in- 
appropriateness,  allows  himself  to  hold  the  following  lan- 
guage :  "  Mr.  D.  refers  us  (on  p.  267)  to  nearly  every  one 
of  them  (the  prophets)  for  passages  of  the  like  tenor  with 
that  in  Acts  iii.  21  ;  that  is,  as  he  expoujids  them."  I  have 
given  no  exposition  of  them  at  all,  but  allowed  the  reader  to 
do  it  for  himself  "  How  easily,"  adds  Prof  S.  "  are  ob- 
jects magnified,  or  the  colour  of  them  changed,  when  we 
look  through  a  glass  appropriate  to  produce  these  effects. 
If  we  can  only  forget  that  we  are  using  a  magnifying  glass, 
or  one  which  has  a  stain  upon  its  ^  surface,  we  may  believe 
that  we  see  every  thing  with  our  own  proper  eyes.  And 
this  is  what  Mr.  D.  has  succeeded  in  completely  doing, 
while  inspecting  the  numerous,  texts  which  he  has  enlisted 
into  his  army."  App.  p.  169,  170. 

If  it  should  so  happen  that  I  was  looking  through  the  very 
glass  which  Peter  was  holding  up,  and  following  the  very  clew 
that  he  gave  me,  then  what  shall  we  say  of  the  Professor's 
sneer  ?  It  lights  where  he  would  not  have  it.  And  to  vin- 
dicate himself,  he  is  bound,  and  I  hold  him  responsible  to 
prove,  that  I  have  used  any  coloured,  or  magnifying,  or  other 
glass,  than  just  the  very  one  which  Peter  gave  his  hearers,  by 
means  of  which  to  understand  his  meaning.  The  Professor's 
dicta  are  no  authority  with  me. 

Nee  me  tua  fervida  terrent 
Dicta,  ferox  :  Dii  me  terrent. 

Impeiuous  accuser  !  I  dread  not  your  rod 
Of  fervid  objurgation  ;  but  I  fear  my  God. 

If  I  have  erred,  in  a  careful  analysis  and  attempt  to  inter- 
pret Peter's  language  by  the  help  of  Peter's  own  reference, 
let  Professor  S.  point  out  the  error  ;  but  let  him  not  think  to 
do  so  by  such  efforts. 

I  meet  him  now  on  the  ground  he  has  laid  out  for  him- 
self    He  defines  the  meaning  of  the  word  dno-AardaTacig, 


THE    SCRIPTURAL   ARGUMENT.  %9 

restoration,  to  be  "  the  putting  of  any  thing  which  has  been 
injured,  has  decayed,  or  is  worn  out,  into  a  renewed  and  good 
condition."  App.  p.  168.  I  dissent  from  his  definition.  He 
will  not  find  it  in  any  good  lexicographer.  On  the  supposi- 
tion that  Peter  had  a  moral  and  spiritual  Millennium  in  view, 
he  says,  Peter  "  might  appropriately  employ  it,  just  as  the 
apostle  (Rom.  xii.  2 :  Titus  iii.  5)  speaks  of  the  renewing 
of  our  minds;"  App.  p.  169;  or,  as  he  has  added,  as  the 
Saviour, — speaking  of  "  spiritual  regeneration, — calls  it  be- 
ing  born  again."  If  he  meant,  that  the  same  reason  for 
Christ's  language  applies  also  to  Peter's  use  of  his,  then  he 
says  that  Peter  used  the  expression  dTzo-AardaTaaig,  restitu- 
tion or  restoration,  "  because  language  furnishes  him  with 
no  more  appropriate  and  significant  means  of  indicating  the 
nature  and  consequences  of"  the  change.  "  Nioodemus," 
he  adds,  "  would  under-stand  him  (the  Saviour)  only  in  the 
carnal  and  material  sense ;  and  this  I  take  to  be  exactly 
what  Mr.  D.  has  done  with  the  words  of  Peter."  App. 
p.  169. 

Now  in  answer  to  this,  I  say  that  the  idea  of  restora- 
tion, restitution,  involves  more  than  that  of  renewing.  A 
thing  may  be  entirely  renoyated,  and  there  be  no  restoration 
at  all.  The  government  of  France  was  renovated  in  1830, 
when  Louis  Philippe  was  made  king  of  the  French,  but 
there  was  no  restoration  of  the  dynasty  of  Napoleon  or  any 
other.  So  it  is  in  the  case  of  regeneration — where  is  the 
restoration  there?  Restoration,  restitution,  implies  the 
idea  of  something  being  brought  back,  and  put  in  its  place, 
which  had  been  lost  or  taken  away — something  strengthened, 
healed,  or  placed  in  a  state  of  security  again,  which  had 
been  weakened,  diseased,  or  perilled,  and  brought  back  to  a 
former  healthy  and  safe  condition.  No  such  thing  can  in 
truth  be  said  of  the  sinner  born  again.  He  is  a  "  new 
creature,  old  things  are  passed  away,  behold  all  things  are 
become  new."     Holiness,  spiritual  life,  the  image  of  God, 


80 

or  whatever  else  we  please  to  call  it,  cannot  be  said  to  be 
restored  to  us  miserable  sinners,  who  are  born  again,  for 
we  never  had  it.  It  is  communicated, — we  are  created  anew 
in  Christ  Jesus,  his  workmanship ;  and  to  talk  of  restora- 
tion, is  totally  out  of  place,  unless,  indeed,  we  speak  of  man 
generically,  that  is,  of  human  nature  abstractly,  when  we 
may  say  correctly  enough,  comparing  his  fallen  with  his 
former  state,  the  image  of  God,  lost  in  Adam  and  by  his 
fall,  is  restored  in  regeneration,  and  so  lost  and  fallen  man 
may  be  said  to  be  restored  to  God ;  but  to  say  that  the  sin- 
ner born  again  is  restored,  using  the  word  as  descriptive  of 
his  character,  and  make  it  synonymous  simply  with  renewed, 
is  to  speak  loosely  and  improperly.  I  refer  Professor  S,,  for 
the  meaning  of  the  English  word  restoration,  to  his  English 
Dictionary ;  and  for  the  meaning  of  aTioxaidataeig,  to  Ro- 
binson's Translation  of  Wahl's  Greek  Lexicon,  that  he  may 
correct  his  definition.  Its  primary  and  proper  meaning  is, 
that  of  placing  any  thing  back  into  a  former  state,  and  so 
Peter  understood  and  used  it,  as  his  reference  to  the  pro- 
phets shows,  for  they  speak  of  the  recovery  of  this  lost  and 
ruined  world  back  to  its  primitive,  holy  and  happy  state. 

Even  Prof.  S.  himself  is  forced  to  abandon  his  own  defini- 
tion. He  'tells  us  of  the  original  good  condition  of  this 
world — of  the  order  and  harmony  that  dwelt  in  it,  till  "  Satan 
and  sin,  and  sinning  angels  and  men,  destroyed  and  dis- 
turbed "  them  : — "  all  veri/  good^  Next  he  tell  us  that  "  a 
new  heavens  and  a  new  earth  will  arise  by  the  mighty 
power  of  God  and  the  Redeemer,  wherein  will  dwell  right- 
eousness, and  righteousness  only.^'  Whence  he  has  obtained 
this  last  idea  of  righteousness  only,  I  do  not  know ; — not 
surely  from  his  Bible ;  but  no  doubt  he  means  it  to  be  under- 
stood tropically  in  all  its  looseness,  and  so  we  let  it  go.  All 
the  rest  is  good  and  true,  morally,  spiritually,  and  logically, 
and  allegorically  too,  if  he  chooses;  but  I  add  also  strictly 
and  literally.     It  is  a  "  literality"  or  "  historical  reality," 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    ARGUMENT.  81 

according  to  my  definition  and  meaning  of  the  phrase  : — all 
of  it,  as  far  as  history  goes,  i.  e.  as  it  is  already  real  matter 
of  fact,  has  eventuated  in  this  material  world — has  demon- 
strated itself  to  be  external,  sensible  reality,  or  terrestrial 
visibility.  I  therefore  affirm,  that  what  remains  to  be  ac- 
complished, will  do  the  same.  Two  of  the  most  signal, 
noticeable,  and  stupendous  results  and  tokens  of  the  destruc- 
tion and  disturbance  of  the  original  order  and  harmony  in 
this  world,  according  to  the  sacred  Scriptures,  were  God's 
cursing  of  the  earth  for  man's  sake,  so  that  in  sorrow  he 
should  eat  of  it  all  the  days  of  his  life,  and  it  should  bring 
forth  thorns  and  thistles  for  his  toil  and  vexation.  Gen. 
iii.  17 — 19;  and  **  the  geological  and  atmospherical  trans- 
formations" wrought  in  it  by  the  deluge.  These  were  both 
literally  matters  of  fact,  matters  of  veritable  history.  Now, 
however  great  may  be  the  moral  and  spiritual  renovation  of 
mankind,  even  though  I  admit, — which  I  am  perfectly  free 
to  do,  along  with  Prof  S., — that  "  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
and  the  restoration  which  He  is  to  introduce,  are  essentially 
and  fundamentally  of  a  moral  and  spiritual  nature,"  yet  the 
restoration  will  not  be  complete,  unless  the  world,  this  globe, 
be  placed  back  into  its  original  good  condition,  in  all  the 
harmony,  order  and  blessedness  reigning  in  it,  when  it  was 
first  invaded,  and  these  things  disturbed  and  destroyed,  as  he 
says,  by  "  Satan  and  sin,  and  sinning  angels  and  men." 
The  redemption  and  restitution  will  not  be  perfect,  till  under 
Christ,  "  the  second  Adam,"  all  things  moral,  spiritual, 
social,  geological,  atmospherical,  physical,  be  brought 
back  to  the  same  original  good  condition  in  which  they  were 
under  the  first  Adam.  Where  then,  I  ask,  is  there  any 
thing  incongruous  in  saying  just  what  Prof  S.  has  done, 
but  in  a  much  wider  and  more  varied  extent  of  import : — • 
"  When  the  great  period  of  man's  probation,  and  the  process 
of  redeeming  sinners  shall  be  completed, — when  (as  Paul 
says)  the  end  cometh — then  ALIi  wit-l  be  restored."    The 


82  PROF.  Stuart's  strictures,  etc. 

incongruity  and  inappropriateness  do  not  consist  at  all  in  the 
things  themselves — they  are  all  order  and  harmony,  perfect 
and  glorious — but  in  Prof.  S.'s  perceptions,  who  looks  at 
them  through  the  coloured  glass  or  concave  lens  of  his  own 
metaphysical  or  philosophical  idea  of  "  the  world  of  mind," 
which  makes  ''  historical  realities"  lose  their  external  form, 
diminish,  and  become  evanescent  and  volatile  as  thought 
and  spirit.  He  has  said  something  about  seeing  motes  in 
others'  eyes,  but  himself  exemplifies  the  remark  of  Terence  : 

Aliena  ut  melius  viJeant,  et  dijudicent 
Cluam  sua  ! 

With  how  much  keener  and  severer  eye 
Men  others'  faults,  and  not  their  own,  espy. 


CHAPTER  X. 


^mif"''''"^ 


PROFESSOK     STU art's     SUMMARY    PROCESS    OF    GETTING   RID    OF 
THE    ARGUMENT. 

The  proposed  distinction,  which  Prof.  S.  has  made  be- 
tween "  tlie  world  of  mind"  and  "  the  world  of  matter," 
and  discovery  of  it  as  a  principle  for  the  interpretation  of 
prophecy,  may  be  called  his  chef  d'cRuvre,  He  uses  it  on 
all  occasions  as  the  universal  solvent — le  grand  ceuvre,  the 
philosopher's  stone — and  it  operates  at  his  bidding  like  some 
concentrated  sulphuric  acid,  to  melt  down  and  utterly  dis- 
solve the  argument  of  his  opponent,  "  Having  thus,"  says 
he,  *'  disclosed  the  fundamental  principle  of  Mr.  D.,  by  the 
aid  of  which  he  summons  help  to  his  cause  from  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  and  having  advertised  the  reader  bi/  what  means  all 
^ra^s  come  to  be  shaped  so  as  to  suit  bis  purpose,  I  must 
content  myself  for  the  rest,  with  merely  giving,  for  the  most 
part,  a  list  to  the  reader  of  the  passages  on  which  he  places 
his  main. reliance."  Then  follows  '^  the  list,''  in  the  midst 
of  which  he  makes  the  remark,  that  those  previously  cited, 
*'  are  all  applied  to  the  coming  of  Christ  before  the  Millen- 
nium, i.  e.,  at  the  commencement  of  it;  and  so  of  all  other 
remaining  texts."  App.  p.  170.  His  readers  will  be  sur- 
prised, when  told,  that  in  Chap.  10  of  the  Dissertations,  pp. 
276-290,  there  is  a  regular  argument,  founded  on  the  gram- 
matico-historical  interpretation  of  Dan.  vii.  7-25,  the  ob- 
ject of  which  is,  to  show,  that  as  Daniel  has  described  the 
coming  of  Christ  to  exercise  avenging  judgment  on  the 
several  constituent  parts  or  regal  dominions  into  which  the 
fourth  beast,  or  the  Roman  empire  that  succeeded  to  the 
Macedonian  or  Grecian,  was  to  be  divided,  and  especially 
the   peculiar    and   formidable   power  that   should   rise  up 


84 

among  them,  answers  to  the  papal  dominion,  and  "  to  give 
the  kingdom  and  dominion,  and  the  greatness  of  the  king- 
dom under  the  whole  heaven  to  the  people  of  the  saints  of 
the  Most  High,  whose  kingdom  is  to  be  an  everlasting  king- 
dom, and  all  dominions  shall  serve  and  obey  Him ;"  so  the 
little  horn,  symbolical  of  popery,  is  to  continue  undestroyed 
until  the  Ancient  of  Days  comes,  and  judgment  shall  be  given 
to  the  saints  of  the  Most  High,  and  the  time  come  that  the 
saints  possess  the  kingdom.  The  conclusion  is  stated  in  the 
following  words,  viz.,  "  As  popery,  and  the  Roman  empire, 
are  both  to  be  destroyed  together,  before  the  dominion  is 
given  to  the  saints ;  and  as  they  are  both  to  continue  till 
the  judgment  shall  sit,  and  Christ  shall  come  in  the  clouds  of 
Heaven,  so  His  coming  must  be  before  the  Millennium,^' 
Dissertations,  p.  286,  unless  indeed  popery  and  the  secular 
oppressive  dominion  of  the  fourth  beast  are  to  exist  during 
the  whole  period  of  the  Millennium. 

In  presenting  this  conclusion,  I  have  said,  that  there  are 
but  two  ways  of  avoiding  it ;  one  is,  to  say  that  the  coming 
of  the  Son  of  Man  spoken  of  by  Daniel,  applies  to  his  ascen- 
sion, as  Maclaurin  affirms ;  the  other,  that  Daniel  does  not 
describe  a  personal  visible  coming  of  Christ  to  judgment,  as 
Faber  and  others  affirm,  both  of  which  I  have  shown  are  alto- 
gether inadmissible.  I  have  not,  it  is  true,  gone  into  any 
elaborate  attempt  at  exposition,  nor  advanced  reasons,  at 
each  step,  in  support  of  what  I  have  given  as  the  meaning  of 
this  prediction  of  Daniel ;  because  I  did  not  deem  it  at  all 
necessary  for  the  presentation  of  the  argument,  inasmuch  as 
the  exposition  advanced  is  what  the  generality  alike  both  of 
spiritualists  and  literalists,  have  conceded  to  be  the  true  in- 
terpretation, fulfilled  and  verified  to  the  very  letter  by  histo- 
rical events.  Not  to  mention  the  views  of  Jerome,  Cyril, 
Witsius,  Hurd,  Woodhouse,  I  might  mention  the  names  of 
Mede,  Cressner,  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  Bishop  Newton,  Faber, 
Cunninghame  and  others.     But  I  am  not  disposed  extensively 


GETTtNG    RID    OF   THE    ARGUMENT.  85 

to  adduce  arguments  in  support  of  what  has  been  settled,  by 
some  of  the  ablest  and  best  critical  scholars  and  expounders 
of  prophecy,  whether  Millenarian  or  anti-Millenarian  ;  espe- 
cially since  Prof  S.  has  not  condescended  to  present  one 
item  of  proof  for  his  own  opinion,  nor  taken  the  first  step  to 
meet  and  answer  the  arguments  of  Mede,  Sir  Isaac  New- 
ton and  Bishop  Newton,  and  others  on  this  subject.  He  has 
begged  the  question  in  the  most  unblushing  manner,  and 
spoken  with  a  confidence,  I  know  not  how  to  reconcile  with 
the  slightest  knowledge  of  the  arguments  of  the  above  named 
profound  scholars  and  expositors.  "  In  v.  24,"  says  he,  "  refer- 
ring to  the  7th  chap,  of  Daniel, "  the  rise  of  Antiochus  Epipba- 
nes  is  described;  for  the  fourth  beast  in  vii  7,  8,  11,  19-26, 
as  all  MUST  concede,  (!!!)  is  the  divided  Grecian  dominion, 
which  succeeded  the  reign  of  Alexander  the  Great."  App.  p. 
83. 

This  is  one  of  the  things  which  I  have  said  in  the  Disser- 
tations Prof  S.  takes  for  granted,  as  though  they  had  not  been 
and  could  not  be  denied.  He  must  first  meet  Bishop  New- 
ton's* sturdy  objections  to  this  gratuitous  assumption,  be- 
fore we  shall  feel  under  any  obligations  formally  to  review 
and  reply  to  his  dogmatic  comment  on  this  chapter  in  his 
Hints,  pp.  83—85. 

It  is  enough  for  me  here  to  say,  that  Prof  S.  renders  the 
subject  of  chronological  prophecy  perfectly  ridiculous.  He 
has  adopted  the  old  interpretation  of  apostate  Jews,  approved 
of  by  apostate  papists,  and  demands,  with  astonishing  ef- 
frontery, that  we  shall  see  the  predictions  of  Daniel  relative 
to  the  1260,  1290,  1335,  and  2300  days,  all  fulfilled  in  the 
history  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  during  so  many  literal 
days,  when  for  the  life  of  him  he  cannot  make  one  of  the 
periods  exactly  agree  with  the  events,  and  confesses  it  too; 
yea,  worse,  would  have  us  believe  that,  notwithstanding  the 

^WW^^^'        *  See  his  Dissertations,  Di       XV. 


86  PROF.  Stuart's  summary  process  of 

prophet  has  given  us  statistically  the  number  of //^era?  days, 
we  must  not  suppose  that  a  statistical  exactness  ivould  or 
could  be  aimed  at !!!  He  talks  of  Antiochus  springing  from 
the  dynasty  of  Alexander  the  Great !  App.  p.  83.  He  might 
just  as  well  and  properly  talk  of  Queen  Victoria  springing 
from  the  dynasty  of  Augustus  Caesar.  Antiochus  was  the 
seventh  monarch  in  succession  from  Seleucus  Nicator,  one  of 
Alexander's  generals,  who  did  not  succeed  to  Alexander  at 
all  as  monarch  of  the  Macedonian  empire,  but  who  com- 
menced a  dynasty  of  his  own,  or  formed  a  kingdom  of  his 
own,  in  Syria — being  one  of  the  four  new  kingdoms  into 
which  the  Macedonian  empire  was  divided.  A  writer  who 
is  himself  so  inaccurate,  who  fails  so  egregiously  in  dis- 
crimination, cannot  perhaps  be  expected  to  be  more  accu- 
rate in  his  interpretation  of  the  prophecies.  Precision  is 
essential.  Let  Prof.  S.  ponder  this,  before  he  again  affects 
to  be  surprised  how  such  men  of  giant  intellect  as  Mede, 
Sir  Isaac  and  Bishop  Newton  and  others,  yea,  the  whole 
body  of  commentators,  for  a  long  period,  should  have  under- 
stood these  periods  to  be  symbolical  and  not  literal  days. 

He  may  therefore  learn  from  these  remarks,  a  solution  of 
what  he  has  affected  to  think  so  "  passing  strange,  that  after 
expending  about  150  pages  to  prove  the  necessity  of  inter- 
preting the  prophecies  literally  (a  misstatement  I  have  already 
noticed,  and  totally  inexcusable,  because  actually  if  not  art- 
fully deceptive),  Mr.  D.  should  everywhere,  without  even 
the  semblance  of  an  apology  or  justification,  convert  all 
the  day  periods  of  the  prophets,  so  far  as  his  purpose  de- 
mands, into  year  periods.  Where  now,  we  are  constrained 
to  ask,  is  the  strenuous  >zeal  for  literality  ?  Not  a  trace  of 
it  seems  to  be  left.  The  difficulty  which  doubters  have 
about  a  day  as  meaning  a  year,  is  not  even  noticed,  much 
less  removed.  How  convenient  such  a  power  of  metamor- 
phosis !  From  one  stage  or  form  of  development  to  another, 
the  author  moves  on,  now  vehemently  urging  the  absolute 


GETTING    RID    OF    THE    ARGUMENT.  87 

and  indispensable  obligation  to  construe  ci>ery  expression  i.itE' 
RALLY,  and  then  winking  every  thing  of  this  nature  entirely 
out  of  sight,  or  trampling  it  under  his  feet."     App.  p  173. 

Prof  S.  either  designed,  or  he  did  not,  to  make  the  impres- 
sion that  I  have  advocated  the  literal  interpretation  of  the 
language  of  the  prophets — "  every  expression,"  as  he  has  it — 
totally  inattentive  to,  or  regardless  of  the  different  styles  of 
speech  employed  by  them,  and  of  the  grammatical  or  rhe- 
torical rules  appropriate  for  their  interpretation.  If  he  did, 
he  has  been  guilty  of  a  deliberate  and  wanton  offence 
against  the  rules  of  honour  and  propriety  ;  and  if  he  has 
attentively  read  the  Dissertations  from  p.  99  to  p.  147,  his 
offence  possesses  still  greater  turpitude,  and  is  one  for 
which  it  is  not  my  province  to  call  him  to  account.  If  he 
did  not  so  design,  then  has  he  written  with  the  most  cen- 
surable looseness,  so  as  to  convey  ideas  contrary  to  truth 
and  injurious  to  me. 

After  what  I  have  already  said,  the  reader  is  abundantly 
able  to  discriminate  between  what  I  have  advocated,  and 
what  Prof.  S.  has  represented  me  to  have  done,  so  that  I 
need  not  here  repeat  it  in  repelling  his  sneers.  I  have  not, 
it  is  true,  entered  on  the  discussion  of  the  meaning  of  the 
prophetical  day,  because  I  have  indeed  assumed,  en  passant, 
the  days  noted  in  several  of  Daniel's  predictions  to  be  sym- 
bolical. Because  I  have  not  seen  any  thing  from  Prof  S., 
nor  any  of  those  with  whom  he  coincides,  which  rendered 
it  necessary  to  adduce  the  arguments  long  since  presented. 
Sir  Isaac  Newton,  in  one  page  and  a  half,  has  pointed  out 
thirteen  particulars  in  which  the  predictions  in  the  8th  chapter 
of  Daniel,  as  referred  by  Prof  S.  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  is 
shown  to  be  utterly  false  and  inapplicable.  The  historical  facts 
are  perfect  antipodes  to  the  prediction,  if  we  must  apply  it 
to  Antiochus.  See  Sir  I.  Newton's  Observations  on  Daniel, 
pp.  123, 124.  The  argument  in  proof  of  symbolical  days, 
i.  e.,  years,  being  meant  in  the  numbers  mentioned  by  Dan- 


iel,  need  not  here  be  much  extended,  nor  is  it  at  all  neces- 
sary, in  defence  of  the  arguments  I  have  advanced  for  the 
second  coming  of  Christ,  to  defend  it.  A  day  is  sometimes 
used  in  prophecy  for  a  year.  See  Num.  xiv.  34  :  Ezek.  iv. 
5,  6.  It  is  worse  than  hypercritical  to  say  that  in  Ezekiel  the 
acts  only,  and  not  the  days,  were  symbolical — God  speaks 
of  the  days  particularly  as  symbolical.  This  done  once  is 
sufficient  proof  that  it  may  be  again.  Nor  is  it  necessary, 
after  the  symbolical  character  of  a  day  has  been  established, 
particularly  to  say  as  at  the  first  a  day  is  put  for  year,  any 
more  than  that  God  should  tell  us  every  time  when  he  uses 
metaphors  and  symbols.  The  judgment  and  observation  of 
men  are  sufficient  to  determine  when  it  is  literal,  and  when 
symbolical.  If  the  events  described  are  of  such  character 
as  could  not,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things,  have  happened 
during  so  many  days,  they  must  be  regarded  as  symbolical. 
Especially  must  this  be  the  case,  when,  as  in  all  Daniel's 
numbers,  it  is  absolute  matter  of  fact,  that  no  events  what- 
ever have  ever  yet  proved  them  to  be  literal  days.  Other 
arguments  adduced  by  the  great  mass  of  commentators, 
whether  spiritualists  or  literalists,  have  not  been  set  aside  by 
any  thing  that  Mr.  Maitland,  Prof  S.,  or  his  German  authori- 
ties have  advanced. 

Here,  by  the  way,  I  may  remark  as  conveniently  as  any- 
where else,  that  as  Prof.  S.  in  his  Hints  refers  the  reader  to 
Bengel,  whom  he  justly  praises  for  his  learning,  as  a  speci- 
men of  sad  wandering  in  his  interpretation  of  chronologi- 
cal prophecy,  it  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  like  Prof.  S.  he 
rejected  the  symbolic  day,  departing  from  the  track  of  com- 
mentators generally.  Vitringa  was  more  cautious,  but 
Bengel  adopted,  by  a  most  singular  arithmetical  process,  a 
period  which  he  deemed  was  the  medium  between  the  literal 
days  and  the  year  days,  and  called  a  XQ^'^^^>  ^^^  prophetic 
time,  &/C.,  and  having  thus  obtained  his  data,  brought  out 
the  crisis  in  the  year  1836.     Bengel   in  this  did  but   afford 


GETTING   RID    OF    THE    ARGUMENT.  89 

one  specimen  out  of  many  of  the  danger  of  resorting  to 
mere  notions  and  reasonings,  instead  of  the  plain,  pointed, 
explicit  showing  of  the  Scripture.  His  errors  in  his  dates 
require  but  little  attention  to  correct.  Does  his  mistake 
here  prove  him  mad — or  will  even  Mr.  Miller's  mistake 
disprove  the  truth  of  prophecy  ? 

Besides,  it  was  not  necessary  for  the  argument,  with 
which  only  I  was  concerned ;  since  if  the  prophetic  day 
be  not  symbolical  of  a  year,  but  is  to  be  understood  literally, 
and  Daniel's  time,  times  and  dividing  of  time,  mean  three 
literal  years  and  a  half,  his  language  only  directs  us  for- 
ward to  an  event  yet  future,  when  the  little  horn — having 
worn  out  the  saints,  in  accordance  with  the  predictions  about 
the  slaying  of  the  witnesses,  and  the  last  phase  of  Anti- 
christ, the  personal  Antichrist,  which  goes  into  perdition — 
shall  have  the  saints  and  times  and  laws  entirely  in  his 
hands  for  three  years  and  a  half.  So  far,  therefore,  as  the 
argument  is  concerned,  nothing  is  said  about  the  symbolic 
day  or  year  of  days,  because  unnecessary.  For  if  the  little 
horn  of  the  7th  chapter  ha«  not  been  proved  to  be  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  but  means  popery,  as  I  have  taken  it,  in  com- 
mon with  most  Protestant  interpreters,  whether  it  is  to  last 
1260  years,  or  only  reach  a  crisis  in  it^  last  terrible  and 
tyrannical  stage  of  its  existence,  or  both,  as  events  may 
show,  continuing  for  three  years  and  a  half,  its  destruction 
should  be  accomplished  by  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man. 
Here  is  the  point  of  the  argument,  and  to  this  point  Profes- 
sor S.  should  have  directed  his  attention,  if  he"  would  have 
either  faithfully  represented  the  views  of  his  opponent,  or 
preferred  reason  to  ridicule. 

If  the  time,  times  and  dividing  of  time  be  three  and  a 
half  literal  years,  they  are  yet  to  come.  For  neither  he  nor 
any  other  commentator  has  arithmetically,  logically,  and 
demonstrably  shown,  that  they  have  as  yet  been  fulfilled.  If 
he  had  adduced   arguments  to  confirm  his  exposition,  they 


90 

might  be  met ;  but  it  were  folly  to  volunteer  objections, 
after  the  arguments,  of  Mede,  Newton  and  others,  and  the 
almost  "  universal  custom"  of  commentators,  as  Professor  S. 
admits,  with  nothing  but  his  assertions,  and  attempts,  in  the 
loosest  manner,  to  accommodate  the  language  of  Daniel  to 
the  history  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes — and  after  it  has  been 
shown,  by  Bishop  Newton,  to  he  far,  very  far,  from  being 
exactly  correspondent,  which  even  Professor  S.  himself  is 
constrained  to  admit,  being  therefore  necessitated  to  explain 
Josephus's  apparently  contradictory  statements.  App.  p.  85. 
It  will  be  time  enough  to  add  any  thing  further  on  this  point, 
when  he  produces  something  like  argument  in  support  of 
his  assertions  and  conjectures. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  years  or  symbolical  days, 
in  number  1260,  they  are  not  yet  run  out,  so  that,  take  it 
either  way,  the  argument  is  not  affected.  Under  another 
head,  when  speaking  of  the  signs  of  Christ's  coming,  I  have 
glanced  at  this  subject,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  how  im- 
proper it  is  to  speak  positively  with  regard  to  dates,  as  some 
have  done,  giving  a  variety  of  periods,  adopted  by  those 
who  have  believed  the  prophetic  three  and  a  half  years  to 
have  been  1260  years ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  expressed  my 
doubts,  and  dissent,  for  reasons  stated  from  those  who  be- 
lieve and  teach  that  the  witnesses  have  been  slain,  and  who 
express  themselves  vaguely  about  the  personal  Antichrist, 
intimating,  as  my  opinion  only,  that  the  rise  of  Antichrist  in 
his  last  form,  and  the  slaughter  of  the  witnesses,  may  yet  be 
future  ;  so  that  the  three  years  and  a  half  may  yet  have  the 
literal  fulfillment  they  never  have  had  to  this  day.  But  Pro- 
fessor S.  has  jumbled  this  up  with  the  argument  from  Daniel 
vii.  7-25,  and  has  taken  occasion  to  make  himself  and  his 
readers  merry  at  my  expense,  as  though  I  had  fixed  dates, 
and  might  ere  long,  should  I  happen  to  live  a  while  yet,  have 
the  finger  pointed  *'  at  some  of"  (my)  ^'  wanderings,"  and 
the  public  be  reminded  of  "  certain y«Mx  pas  made  by  me," 


GETTING   RID    OF    THE    ARGlfMJ 


if  not  be  classed  with  Mr.  Miller  and  others,  \vho?c  dates  ho   ^**  4 
has  not  correctly  stated,  but  whom  in  gross  pucril^  wit,  he,   ,  t^*. 

very  unbecomingly  for   himself  and  his  subject,  would  sty}» — ^ 

April  fools.  "^ 

And  here,  by  the  way,  in  noticing  his  remarks  about  time, 
he  stands  chargeable  with  another  misrepresentation,  as  in- 
excusable as  any  that  have  gone  before  it.  He  has  assigned 
a  decisive  date,  as  taught  by  me  for  the  coming  of  the 
Saviour,  and  that  too  but  twenty-six  years  hence,  when  on 
the  very  next  page  I  have  stated  expressly,  that  however  near 
we  may  think  it  to  be,  the  range  of  time  may  be  seven  times 
greater,  for  any  thing  that  we  can  tell.*  The  reader  will 
form  his  own  comment  on  such  treatment  of  an  argument. 

*  Since  writing  the  above  I  have  seen  Prof.  Stowe's  pamphlet  on 
the  grolindlessness  of  what  he  calls  Millennial  Arithmetic,  evidently 
aimed  against  Mr.  Miller's  views  arid  calculations.  Mr.  Miller's  cal- 
culations I  have  no  doubt  are  erroneous  in  many  respects.  His  Chro- 
nology certainly  is  replete  with  error  ;  and  his  assumptions  in  some 
cases  equally  so,  as  for  example  when  Ire  makes  the  cleansing  of  the 
Sanctuary  identical  with  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  the  visions  of  the 
7th  and  8th  chapters  of  Daniel  to  be  the  same.  I  have  regretted  that 
Mr.  Miller  has  been  so  confident  in  his  assertions  and  his  exposition  ; 
and  having  read  all  he  has  published  for  many  years  past,  have  never, 
in  any  respect  whatever,  been  led  to  the  conclusions,  of  the  truth  of 
which  he  seems  himself  to  be  so  fully  convinced.  But  I  regret  also,  that 
he  should  be  opposed  in  the  way  and  spirit  he  has  been  :  and  partic- 
ularly that  Prof  Stowe  should  have  dropped  some  of  the  remarks  he 
has  in  his  pamphlet.  He  has  said  that  all  writers  on  the  subject  of 
chronological  prophecy  have  "assumep,"  that  the  forty-two  months, 
or  a  rime,  times  and  a  half,  are  so  many  years  as  there  are  days 
in  these  periods.  Some  may  have  done  so.  I  confess  that  I  did  in  my 
Dissertations,  because  my  subject  led  me  not  into  the  discussion  of 
that  point,  because  the  argument  rendered  it  unnecessary,  and  be- 
cause I  had  been  satisfied  with  the  proofs  adduced  by  Mede,  Newton, 
Faber  and  others.  Theij  do  not  assume  it.  Their  arguments  may 
not  be  conclusive,  but  their  inconclusiveness  should  be  shown.  Pro- 
fessor Stowe  has  not  done  so.  Nor  has  he,  as  I  think,  proved  that 
these  are  definite  numbers  used  merely  to  denote  a  definite  or  limited 


92  PROF.  Stuart's  summary  process  of 

His  representation  of  it  is  of  a  piece  with  his  assertion, 
that  I  "  everywhere  quote  the  Apocalypse"  by  a  new  title, 
viz.  Revelations.  When  I  quote  it,  it  is  as  he  has  done 
himself.  When  I  refer  to  the  hook  and  speak  of  it,  I  fre- 
quently, not  "  everywhere ^^^  use  the  plural,  in  common  with 
many  authors,  to  express  the  number  and  variety  of  the  re- 
velations God  made  to  the  Apostle  John,  and  which  are 
embodied  in  it. 

In  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the  Dissertations,  the  attentive 
reader  will  find  another  argument,  founded  on  the  strict 
grammatico-historical  interpretation  of  2  Thess.  ii.  1 — 12, 
(not  ii.  5 — 7  as  he  has  it,)  showing  that  the  coming  of 
Christ  will  be  pre-millennial,  or  cotemporaneous,  with  the 
destruction  of  popery.     Other  passages  of  Scripture  are  in- 

peiiod.  All  times  referrciJ  ^  o  in  prophecy  are  of  necessity  definite  ar 
limited,  whether  a  number  is  used  to  express  them  or  not.  It  is  a 
very  easy  thing  to  tell  when  round  numbers  are  used,  in  which  the 
speaker  does  not  intend  to  be  understood  to  speak  exactly,  arwl  when 
statistical  numbers  and  dates  ate  used,  where  he  does.  Daniel's  230Q 
evening-mornings  niust  be  understood  as  statistically  or  chronologi- 
cally exact,  if  ever  any  numbers  can  be  ;  or  else  the  angel  did  not  an- 
swer his  question  which  we  read  he  did,  for  they  are  given  in  answer  to 
y  the  specific  question,  how  long.  I  cannot  take  such  liberty  in  explain- 
ing the  word  of  God,  because  I  would  not  dare  to  do  it,  in  explaining 
Prof.  Stowe  or  Prof.  Stuart,  or  any  one  else,  if  in  arjswer  to  my  ques- 
tion, how  long,  they  should  give  me  a  specific  number  in  reply.  Prof. 
Stowe's  object  is  to  excite  distrust  as  to  all  dates,  aflirming  that 
we  cannot  tell  when  the  apostasy  of  Rome  commenced.  If  he  had 
said  we  know  not  the  date  which  God  had  in  view  he  would  be  cor- 
rect, and  we  should  be  urged  to  modesty  :  but  it  is  rather  a  matter 
of  surprise  to  me,  to  bear  it  said  that  we  cannot  tell  by  a  century 
when  Rome  became  an  apostate  church.  If  we  can  tell  that  she  is 
so  now,  there  can  be  but  little  difiiculty  in  determining  about  when 
she  became  so.  Still  more  surprising  does  it  appear  to  me,  that  Prof, 
Stowe,  having  rejected  all  dates  and  all  "  Millenial  arithmetic" 
down  at  least  till  1926,  should  have  nevertheless  told  us  that  the 
most  probable  period  for  commencing  the  Millejinium  is  about  A. 
A).  2000  ! ! .' 


GETTING    RID    OF    THE    ARGUMENT.  93 

troduced,  as  they  serve  to  illustrate  or  throw  light  upon  the 
language  and  meaning  of  the  Apostle.  Prof.  S.  has  given  a 
bald  list  of  texts,  without  stating  their  connection,  or  my 
object  in  quoting  them,  or  the  specific  use  made  of  them, 
and  affirms  my  "  main  reliance"  to  be  on  them.  It  suited 
his  purpose,  doubtless,  to  keep  his  readers  in  ignorance. 

The  only  thing  he  has  adduced,  in  reply  to  the  argument 
in  the  eleventh  chapter,  is  the  following,  which  I  give  as  a 
specimen  of  worse  than  puerile  weakness  :  *'  Specially  and 
at  length  does  h6  argue  the  point,  that  2  Thess.  ii.  8,  which 
speaks  of  the  man  of  sin  being  destroyed  by  the  breath  of 
the  mouth,  and  the  brightness  of  the  appearing  of  Christ, 
admits  of  no  other  than  a  strictly  literal  sense,"  p.  310,  seq. 
If  the  point  is  argued,  certainly  it  behooved  him  to  notice 
the  argument,  and  to  show  its  fallacy ;  but  this  lie  has  re- 
fused to  do,  falling  back  on  his  own  claimed  authoritative 
supremacy,  as  interpreter  of  Scripture,  whose  ipse  dixit  is 
law,  and  saying,  *'  For  myself,  after  turning  this  matter 
round  and  round,  in  order  to  view  it  on  every  side,  /  have 
not  been  able  to  make  out  what  the  breath  of  the  mouthy  in 
a  strictly  literal  sense,  is,  of  a  being  which  at  most  has  only 
a  spiritual  body  (1  Cor.  xv.  44  :  comp.  Phil.  iii.  21)  ;  for 
such  must  be  the  case,  in  respect  of  the  body  of  Jesus  in 
the  world  of  glory.  Nor  am  I  able  to  see  how  brightness, 
(in  the  original  lni(pavsla,)  in  the  strictly  literal  sense,  can 
destroy  either  the  man  of  sin  or  any  other  man.  It  might 
put  oiit  their  eyes,  if  carried  to  a  certain  extent ;  but  this 
would  not  be  to  destroy  them.  And  as  to  this  last  word, 
destroy,  if  all  the  rest  of  the  verse  is  strictly  literal,  of 
course  this  part  of  it  is  so.  The  consequence  then  is  in- 
evitable, that  when  Christ  comes  the  man  of  sin  and  his 
adherents  are  to  be  annihilated ;  for  nothing  less  than  this 
can  meet  the  full  and  literal  import  of  the  word  avaXcaast, 
destroy."  App.  p.  170,  171. 

Now  this,  what — notwithstanding  I  yield  all  the  respect 

6 


94 

to  Prof.  S.  in  other  matters  which  he  merits — I  must  call 
miserable  drivelling  badinage,  is  all  that  he  pretends  to  offer, 
in  reply  to  a  regular  extended  argument !  an  "  entertain- 
ment," as  he  calls  it,  quite  as  offensive  to  men  who  think 
for  themselves  and  love  to  reason,- 

Ut  gralas  inter  mensas  symphonia  discors 

Et  crassurn  unguentum,  et  sardo  cum  melle  papaver 

Ofifendunt. 

As  jarring  music  at  a  jovial  feast, 
Or  muddy  essence,  or  th'  ungrateful  taste 
•  Of  bitter  honey,  shall  the  guests  displease. 

In  the  argument,  which  he  has  thus  attempted  to  laugh 
to  scorn,  I  have  denied,  that  the  language  in  the  text  is 
metaphorical,  or  that  it  of  necessity  must  be  tropically  under- 
stood. The  onus  prohandi  falls  on  those  who  say  it  is,  and 
must  be  so  understood.  But  I  have  fortified  my  denial  by 
arguments,  and  have  further  shown,  that  the  expressions, 
"  the  spirit  of  his  mouth,"  "  the  brightness  of  his  appear- 
ing," cannot  possibly  be  construed  into  metaphor,  and  are, 
in  common  with  other  phrases  employed  on  this  subject, 
always  used  in  the  strict  literal  sense,  when  they  occur  in 
the  New  Testament.  Dissertations,  p.  311.  I  have  also 
given  two  distinct  and  independent  arguments,  in  proof  of 
this  point,  and  a  reference  to  the  words  and  an  examination 
of  their  import,  in  every  place  where  they  occur  in  the  New 
Testament.  See  Dissertations,  pp.  311-325. 

Prof  S.  reverts  to  the  argumentum  ah  ignoratitia,  and 
pleads  his  ignorance, — after  his  utmost  effort  to  imagine 
what  can  be  the  hreatTi  of  the  mouth  of  a  spiritual  hody, — as 
though  it  therefore  must  be,  in  any  other  than  a  tropical 
sense,  an  absurdity  or  impossibility.  To  this  I  might  reply, 
in  the  well-known  words  of  Shakspeare  : 

There  are  niore  things  in  Heaven  and  Earth,  Horatio, 
Than  are  dreamt  of  in  your  philosophy  ! 


GETTING    RID    OF    THE    ARGUMENT.  95 

But  I  will  not  reprove  him  by  the  English  bard,  but  by 
his  English  Bible,  referring  him  to  an  historical  fact,  which, 
despite  of  all  Prof  S.'s  professed  ignorance  and  imbecility 
of  judgment,  after  turning  the  matter  "round  and  round," 
-remains  a  literal  fact,  nevertheless.  The  blessed  Redeemer, 
in  his  raised  body — his  "  spiritual  body," — stood  in  the  midst 
of  his  disciples,  and  said  once  and  again,  "  Peace  be  unto 
you,  &LC.,"  and  when  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on  them, 
&/C. — John  XX.  19 — 22.  Moses  and  Elias  appeared  with 
Christ,  on  the  mount  of  transfiguration,  talking  with  Him. — 
Mat.  xvii.  3.  What  is  speech  but  articulate  sounds  proceed- 
ing from  the  mouth  1  and  what  creates  sound,  but  air  put  in 
vibratory  motion  1 — all  strictly,  liWrally  true.  This  were 
enough  to  reprove  the  Professor's  attempt  to  make  his  notions 
of  the  powers  of  a  "  spiritual  body"  a  standard  and  rule  of 
interpretation,  as  to  the  meaning  of  Scriptural  expressions. 

But  his  attempt  at  wit,  is  even  more  censurable  still ;  for 
I  have  shown  that  the  literal  sy  em  of  interpretation  does 
not  treat  with  disrespect  the  id  ms  of  speech,  but  requires 
them  to  be  duly  attended  to  in  analyzing  the  meaning  of 
expressions  ;  and  I  have  further  shown,  that  the  phrase,  *'  the 
breath  of  his  mouth,"  was  an  idiomatic  form  of  speech  among 
the  Hebrews,  and  given  examples  from  the  Old  Testament, 
which  determine  its  meaning  in  two  respects,  according  to 
the  W5MS  loquendi,  or  popular  use  of  the  phrase,  to  be  either, 
or  both,  a  mighty  tempest  or  a  mighty  voice  or  shout.  See 
Dissertations,  pp.  321, 322.  Now  it  is  a  matter  of  little  or  no 
moment,  whether,  in  the  first  instance,  such  forms  of  speech 
were  tropical  or  not.  Ernesti  tells  us  that  "  usage  sometimes 
converts  tropical  words  into  proper  ones,^^  and  by  proper 
words,  he  means  those  that  are  literal  "  in  respect  to  their 
meaning."  See  Ernesti's  Principles  of  Interpretation,  pp. 
21,  23.  Even  Professor  S.  himself,  in  a  note  on  p.  13,  when 
speaking  of  Ernesti's  condemnation  of  one  of  Origen's  posi- 
tions, approved  by  some  of  the  Fathers  after  him,  and  echoed 


96 

by  many  Romish  doctors,  thai  some  passages  of  Scripture 
have  no  literal  sense,  says,  *'  By  literal  sense  here,  Ernesti 
means  a  sense  not  allegorical  or  mystical;  for  to  this,  lit- 
teral  is  here  opposed,  and  not  to  tropical,  as  it  commonly 
is."  This  Professor  S.  knows  is  precisely  the  sense  in 
which  I  have  used  the  word  literal,  or  if  not,  he  betrays  an 
obtuseness  of  perception,  of  which  I  would  not  have  sus- 
pected him ;  for  I  challenge  any  and  every  unsophisticated 
and  unprejudiced  man,  to  read,  with  ordinary  degree  of  at- 
tention, what  I  have  written  on  the  subject  of  the  literal 
system  of  interpretation,  and  get  any  other  idea  out  of  it.  I 
have  never  met  or  hea]^  of  one  of  my  numeroGs  hearers, 
who  attended  the  delivery  of  the  Lectures, — in  substance 
the  same  with  the  Dissertations, — that  ever  conceived  or 
understood  me  to  use  the  word  literal  in  the  invidious  sense, 
which  Prof.  S.  has  given  it  in  his  "  strictures,"  or  in  any 
other  than  as  he  himself  has  defined  or  explained  it. 

His  remarks  about  the  meaning  of  the  word  brigJitness 
are  almost  too  trifling,  to  receive  a  moment's  attention.  It 
is  wit  of  the  stalest  sort.  He  admits  that  brightness  might 
put  out  the  eyes.  I  will  not  condescend  to  play  as  I  might 
upon  the  proper  and  tropical  import  of  these  his  idiomatic 
expressions,  nor  to  notice  what  meaning  the  usus  loquendi 
gives  them,  for  it  is  too  trifling  for  so  grave  a  theme ;  but 
it  would  be  only  doing  what  he  has  done.  All  I  have  to 
say  is,  that  if  intense  brightness  is  capable  of  destroying  the 
organs  of  vision,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  believe,  that  it 
can  be  so  increased  as  to  disturb  yet  more  perniciously 
the  animal  economy.  He  had  much  better  have  consulted 
physiological  and  pathological  writers,  for  information  on 
the  influence  and  effects  of  concentrated  light  upon  the  vi- 
tal system,  before  he  allowed  himself  to  attempt,  in  his  con- 
fessed ignorance,  to  be  witty. 

Beside,  it  is  a  very  common  process  of  thought,  and  usage 
of  speech,  when  we  designate  any  thing  by  an  expression 


GETTING    RID   OF   THE    ARGUMENT.  ^t 

which  describes  one  conspicuous  and  remarkable  power  or 
property,  to  judge  and  speak  of  its  effects  and  operations 
by  means  of  other  powers  or  properties  intimately,  essentially, 
or  inseparably  united  with  it.  The  Scriptures,  for  example, 
designate  the  Saviour  sometimes  by  the  phrase  the  Son  of  Man, 
which  is  especially  appropriate  to  his  humanity,  and  yet  at 
the  very  same  time  speak  of  acts  or  powers  which  pertain 
to  and  imply  his  divinity,  and  vice  versa. 

With  intense  brightness  we  associate  the  i4ea  of  intense 
heat,  nor  can  we  well  separate  them.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
express  an  object  by  a  term  or  terms  that  denote  both  ;  either 
will  do.  Prof  S.  certainly  cannot  have  forgotten,  or  failed 
to  observe  from  other  passages  in  the  Scriptures,  that  the 
brightness  attendant  on  the  coming  and  manifestation  of 
Jesus  Christ,  to  which  such  destructive  efficiency  is  attri- 
buted, is  that  of  devouring  Jire.  Paul  says  expressly,  that 
*'  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven — inflaming 
fire,  iv  7ZVQL  cployog,  taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know 
not  God,  and  obey  not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
who  shall  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  (dohjg,  which  is 
but  another  word  for  concentrated  light,  effulgence  or  bright- 
ness, see  Luke  ii.  9,  ix.  31  :  Actsxxii.  11,  &c.)  of  his  power." 
The  plain  common  reader  finds  no  such  difficulty  of  appre- 
hension as  that  of  which  Prof  S.  complains. 

Perhaps  he  is  a  philosopher,  and  does  not  take  things  in 
such  a  plain  and  obvious  import,  but  must  discover  some 
other  quo  mode  of  destroying  brightness,  than  "  the  fervent 
heat"  which  shall  melt  the  elements,  according  to  2  Peter  iii. 
10.  Has  he  then  ever  investigated,  but  forgotten,  the  im- 
mensely dv^structive  power  of  that  intense  brightness,  the 
concentrated  electric  fluid  in  its  transits,  and  how  instanta- 
neously it  does  more  than  put  out  the  eyes,  even  destroys 
life,    rives  the   gnarled   oak,    and   rends  the  very  rocks  ? 


98 

Surely  he  has  forgotten  to  consult  even  his  Bible  on  this 
subject ;  for  David  would  have  solved  the  wonderful  mystery 
for  him,  when  he  describes  the  coming  of  the  Lord  in  glory 
and  majesty  :  "  At  the  brightness  that  was  before  him  his 
thick  clouds  passed  ;  hail-stones  and  coals  of  fire.  The 
Lord  also  thundered  in  the  heavens,  and  the  Highest  gave 
his  voice ;  hail-stones  and  coals  of  fire.  Yea,  he  sent  out 
his  arrows,  and  scattered  them  ;  and  he  shot  out  lightnings 
and  discomfited  them.     Psalm  xviii.  12 — 14. 

Perhaps,  also,  he  will  tell  us,  this  is  a  poetical  description 
of  a  mighty  and  magnificent  thunder  storm.  Be  it  so;  but 
what  if  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  his  bright  appearing,  be 
in  the  very  midst  of  such  a  tempest,  as  it  once  was  when  he 
descended  on  Sinai !  Will  Professor  S.  ask  how  such  bright- 
ness can  destroy?  His  plea  of  ignorance  here  is  more 
than  weakness.  Nor  can  he  relieve  himself  by  assigning, 
as  he  has  done,  to  the  word  destroy,  dvaXmaEi,  the  meaning 
of  annihilation,  as  its  only  proper  literal  signification.  For 
the  proper  or  literal  idea  of  the  word  destroy,  is  to  pull 
down,  to  level  in  ruins,  to  dissolve  and  reduce  to  its  original 
elements,  to  disturb  and  disarrange  existing  order  and  or- 
ganization, always  according  to  the  nature  of  the  thing  of 
which  it  is  predicated.  The  idea  of  annihilation  is  alto- 
gether philosophical,  or  I  should  say,  anti-philosophical,  and 
forms  no  part  of  the  literal  import  of  the  English  word  de- 
stroy, or  of  the  Greek  word  dvaXiano).  Fire  consumes^  and 
destroys,  but  it  does  not  annihilate.  When  the  disciples 
asked,  "  Lord  wilt  thou  that  we  command  fire  to  come  down 
from  heaven,  and  consume  them,  as  Elias  did  ?" — dvaXojcca 
avzvog — Luke  ix.  54,  they  meant  to  be  literally  understood, 
and  to  destroy  the  Samaritans  as  literally  as  at  Elias's  com- 
mand, "  there  came  down  fite  from  heaven,  and  consumed 
him  and  his  fifty,"  2  Kings  i.  10,  i.  e.,  the  captain  and  his  com- 
pany ;  but  in  all  this,  neither  the  idea  nor  the  fact  of  anni- 


gett/ng  rid  of  the  argument.  99 

hilation  forms  part  and  parcel  of  the  literal  import  of  the  ex- 
pression. Professor  S.  has  attempted  to  be  witty  here  in 
the  most  awkward  manner, 

Ludere  qui  nescit,  campestribus  abstinet  arrais, 
Indoctusque  pilae  discive,  trochive  quiescit, 
Ne  spissae  risum  toUant  impune  coronse. 

The  man,  who  knows  not  how  with  art  to  wield 
The  sportive  weapons  of  the  martial  field, 
The  bounding  ball,  round  quoit,  or  whirling  troque, 
Will  but  the  laughter  of  the  crowd  provoke. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

J? 

PROF£SSOE.    STUARt's    ADROITNESS,    ETC.     IN    EVADING    A    MAIN 
QUESTION. 

A  VERY  important  and  essential  inquiry  kept  in  view 
throughout  the  Dissertations  is,  whether  the  Scriptural  idea 
and  account  of  the  day  of  judgment  are  not,  in  many  re- 
spects, much  more  extended,  comprehensive,  and  widely 
different  from  the  popular  notion  of  a  mere  judiciary  trial 
for  personal  retributions.  I  have  admitted  that  this  limited, 
floating,  ill-designed,  and  generally  prevalent  idea,  of  the 
nature  of  the  day  of  judgment,  if  assumed,  will  render  it 
exceedingly  difficult,  yea  impossible,  to  harmonize  the  pre- 
dictions of  the  prophets  relative  to  the  day  of  judgment  by 
the  literal  system  of  interpretation,  and  indeed  I  may  add 
by  any  other.  I  have  nevertheless  assumed,  that  they  can 
be  harmonized,  and  stated  some  reasons  why  it  is  found 
difficult  to  do  so. 

God  is  the  author  of  order  and  not  of  confusion,  and  there- 
fore, if  there  are  to  us  apparent  inconsistencies  and  contra- 
dictions in  the  Scriptural  account  of  the  day  of  judgment, 
it  is  but  fair  and  right  to  conclude  that  they  are  owing,  not 
to  the  fact  of  there  being  such  things  in  the  system  of  pro- 
phecy, but  that  we  have  neither  rightly  apprehended  the 
meaning  of  the  prophets,  nor  seen  the  different  parts  and 
provisions  of  God's  wondrous  plan  from  the  same  point  or 
in  the  same  light  in  which  they  did.  We  find  difficulty  in 
harmonizing  the  historical  accounts  of  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  given  us  by  the  Evangelists ;  yet  is  it  not  impossible 
to  do  so.  How  much  more  difficult,  however,  must  it  be, 
where  the  future,  and  not  the  past,  becomes  the  theme  of 
investigation  ? 


101 

In  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  Dissertations,  I  have  attempted 
to  compare  the  different  accounts  of  the  day  of  judgment 
given  by  Daniel,  Christ,  Paul,~  and  John,  especially  the 
more  extended  account  of  the  Saviour,  in  the  25th  chapter  of 
Matthew.  Two  very  different  ideas  have  been  apprehended 
by  biblical  students,  as  to  what  is  the  scriptural  view  of  the 
nature  of  the  day  of  judgment.  One  is,  that  it  will  be  a 
very  short  or  limited  period,  during  which  the  dead  in  all 
ages,  and  the  livingi,  will  be  all  promiscuously  gathered,  in 
one  vast  assembly,  before  Jesus  Christ  the  Judge,  to  be  tried 
and  to  receive  their  final  and  eternal  sentence.  One  por- 
tion, the  righteous,  being  separated  from  the  wicked  and 
placed  on  the  right  hand,  called  the  sheep,  the  other,  the 
wicked,  on  the  left  hand,  called  the  goats,  to  whom  re- 
spectively, in  their  universal  collections  or  segregations,  the 
awards  of  grace  and  of  justice,  which  fix  their  condition 
for  eternity,  shall  be  simultaneously  made.  The  other  ^ 
idea  is,  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  give  this  account  of 
the  day  of  judgment ;  but  that  it  is  properly  and  strictly 
a  new  dispensation,  viz.  that  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven 
actually  come  upon  the  earth,  introduced  by  the  visible 
manifestation  of  Christ  with  his  raised  saints,  as  the 
Avenger  and  Judge  of  his  people ;  at  which  time  the  nations 
then  existing,  in  their  character  as  organized  bodies,  or 
masses  of  men  in  national  bonds  and  relations,  shall  be 
judged  and  punished  as  their  crimes  shall  deserve ;  those 
denominated  antichristian,  who  had  opposed  and  persecuted 
the  people  of  God,  shall  be  judged  and  destroyed;  the  rem- 
nant of  the  Jewish  race  converted,  collected,  and  established  ' 
in  the  land  promised  to  their  forefathers ;  the  Theocracy 
revived  ;  and  the  reign  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  his  associa- 
ted and  raised  saints,  as  his  subordinate  agencies,  and  as 
administrators  in  some  new,  peculiar,  and  to  us  inconceiva- 
ble yet  glorious  manner,  appropriate  to  their  spiritual  and  ^ 
glorified  condition — be  extended  over  the  earth,  in  a  blessed 

6* 


102  PROF.  Stuart's  adroitness,  etc. 

and  wonderful  system  of  rule  or  judgment,  during  which 
Satan  shall  exert  no  influence  among  men.  This  dispensa- 
tion, after  having  continued  a  thousand  years,  shall  be  suc- 
ceeded by  the  last  effort  of  satanic  and  human  wickedness, 
issuing  in  the  utter  destruction  of  the  conspirators  in 
the  final  acts  of  retributive  justice,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  dead  and  living,  in  the  eternal  expulsion  of  Satan  and  of 
his  hosts  from  this  world,  in  the  eternal  retributions  of  the 
wicked,  and  in  the  eternal  state  of  peace,  glory,  and  felici- 
ty, when  this  world,  renewed,  refashioned,  and  restored 
to  its  pristine  glorious  and  good  condition,  shall  be  the 
abode  of  righteousness,  and  the  mediatorial  kingdom  of 
Jesus  Christ  give  place  to  the  direct,  immediate  reign  of 
Heaven,  in  which  "God  shall  be  all  and  in  all,"  and  death 
for  ever  cease  its  ravages.  This  is  but  the  most  rapid  sketch 
of  thegr  eat  scenes  comprehended  in  the  day  or  dispensation 
oi judgment,  lasting  for  one  thousand  years,  andcalling  into 
exercise  not  only  the  judiciary,  but  the  legislative  and  execu- 
tivefunctions  of  Jesus  Christ,  our  Judge  and  Lawgiver  and 
King. 

I  have  endeavored  to  show  that  this  idea  of  the  Millen- 
nium, being  itself  Me  day  of  judgment,  the  dispensation  of 
Heaven's  rule,  is  that  which  naturally  grows  oiit  of  the 
grammatico-historical  interpretation  of  the  prophecies,  ren- 
ders all  that  the  prophets  and  apostles  have  predicted  per- 
fectly harmonious,  and  is  in  accordance  with  the  fair  and 
legitimate  import  of  Christ's  language  in  the  24th  and  25th 
chapters  of  Matthew,  and  their  parallel  passages  in  the  other 
Evangelists,  thus  interpreted.  Prof.  S.  has  not  dropped  a 
hint,  that  such  a  difference  exists  as  to  the  scriptural  import 
of  the  day  of  judgment.  On  the  contrary,  the  idea  of  the 
Millennium  being  itself  the  prolonged  and  glorious  judg- 
ment-day, he  has  studiously  concealed,  and  represents  me 
as  making  a  great  effort  "  to  remove  the  great  stumbling- 
block  to"  (my)  **  system,"  as  he  chooses  to  call  it,  viz.,  *'  the 


IN    EVADING   A   MAIN    QUESTION.  103 

day  of  judgment  and  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man,  when 
this  day  shall  be  ushered  in."  App.  p.  171.  All  that  I  hate 
to  say  in  reply,  is,  that  he  chooses  to  use  the  word  judgment, 
in  his  own  limited  and  assumed  sense, — keeps  back  what  I 
declare  to  be  the  scriptural  idea,  and  then,  carrying  his  own 
idea  along  with  him, — as  though  mine  too  was  ideiitical 
with  his, — attempts  to  point  out,  and  sneer  at,  my  alleged 
inconsistencies.  I  leave  honourable  men  to  judge  of  such  a 
method  of  evading  a  main  question  at  issue,  not  doubting 
what  their  judgment  will  be. 

I  am  not  at'  present  concerned  to  establish  these  views. 
The  reader  may  consult  what  I  have  written,  and  Prof  S. 
is  riespectfully  requested,  not  hi  the  spirit  of  his  "  strictures," 
but  in  Christian  courtesy  and  calm  investigation,  to  review 
the  subject,  and  to  say  what  are,  and  what  he  has  to  support,  his 
ideas  of  the  day  of  judgment,  as  well  as  what  ar6  the  fallacies, 
in  the  application  of  the  principles  of  grammatico-historical 
interpretation,  that  bring  out  from  the  prophetic  writings  the 
Mea  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  and  the  Millennial  state,  being 
the  new  dispensation  of  judgment,  in  the  multiform  varidfies 
and  administration  of  governmental  rule  or  dominion,  com- 
mencing at  the  Saviour's  coming,  but  prolonged,  until 
it  is  perfected  in  the  consummation  of  this  world's  redemp- 
tion from  the  tyranny  of  the  devil.  It  concerns  me  only  to 
notice  the  few  specimens  of  what  I  must  call,  without  mean- 
ing any  personal  disrespect,  either  his  misapprehension  of 
the  whole  subject,  or  misrepresentation  of  my  language  and 
argument. 

"The  sum  of"  (my)  "results,"  he  says,  "is  as  follows  : 
(1.)  The  nations  in  the  flesh,  and  such  only  as  have  pers:e- 
cuted  the  Jews  and  the  Church  (p.  364),  are.  to  be  gathered, 
judged,  and  destroyed  ;  and  this  judgment  is  to  last  through 
centuries,"  p.  366.  The  reader  would  suppose  from  this, 
that  I  taught  that  the  divine  retributive  punishment  of  the 
nations  devoted  to  destruction,  which  is  the  sense  in  which 


104*  PROF,  stuart's  adroitness,  etc. 

he  uses  the  words  judge  and  judgment,  as  here  applied,  is  to 
be  in  a  course  of  infliction  for  centuries.  I  have  not  so 
written  or  taught.  Prof.  S.  has  jumbled  together  his  own 
conceits,  not  my  statements. 

On  page  364,  I  am  tracing  the  resemblance  between 
Christ's  accountof  the  judgment,  and  Ezekiel's,  in  ch.  xxxiv., 
on  "the  Gentile  nations  for  having  scattered  his  people 
abroad,"  &:,c.,  that  is,  the  retributive  judgments  or  punish- 
ment inflicted  on  them.  On  p.  366  I  am  speaking  of  the 
Millennial  dispensation,  as  the  great  day  or  dispensation  of 
judgment,  according  to  the  view  already  stated,  of  its  being 
the  entire,  varied,  and  extended  dominion  of  Christ  and  his 
saints.  Prof.  S.  has  confounded  these  things,  and  thus 
misrepresented  the  views  expressed. 

He  continues,  "(2.)  No  resurrection  of  the  wicked  pre- 
cedes this  judgment,  but  only  the  resurrection  of  saints." — 
If  he  means,  by  "  this  judgment"  the  Dispensation  of  judg- 
ment, or  Dominion  of  Christ  and  His  saints,  introduced  by 
Christ's  coming,  the  resurrection  of  his  saints,  and  the  des- 
truction of  the  antichristian  nations,  he  has  stated  my  views 
correctly.  If  he  means  by  "  this  judgment,"  his  own  notion 
of  the  day  of  judgment,  then  he  has  misrepresented  them ; 
for  I  believe  with  him,  that,  at  the  termination  of  the  1000 
years,  the  wicked  shall  be  raised,  and  all  shall  be  judged. 

In  the  third  particular  about  the  visible  dominion  of  Christ 
and  his  saints  on  this  earth,  if  "  by  arranging  and  governing 
the  new  terrestrial  kingdom,"  he  means  "  the.  kingdom  of 
Heaven,"  as  I  have  taught,  in  its  own  glorious,  peculiar 
and  wonderful  adaptation  to  the  circumstances  of  the  occa- 
sion, and  the  design  of  Heaven,  he  has  stated  my  views  cor- 
rectly ;  but  if  he  means  any  thing  else  by  the  phrase  "  new 
terrestrial  kingdom,"  he  has  misrepresented  them. 

He  thinks  that  little  or  no  comment,  on  his  part,  is  neces- 
sary, to  expose  "  this  effort  of  Mr.  D.,"  as  he  calls  it ;  but 
adventures,  in  a  f\itile  effort — (I  was  about  to  characterize  it 


IN    EVADING   A   MAIN    QUESTION.  105 

more  severely,) — to  convict  me  of  having  contradicted  the 
Saviour.  "(1.)  Christ  himself,"  he  remarks,  "  says,  that 
*  he  will  come  in  his  glory,  with  all  his  holy  angels,^  when  he 
is  about  to  sit  upon  his  throne  of  judgment.  Mat.  xxv.  31. 
Mr.  D.  says  that  he  will  come  with  all  his  saints,  thus  ma- 
king ayysXoi  (angels)  to  mean  holy  men  or  saints.^'  On  the 
next  page,  referring  to  th^  same  thing,  he  adds  :  "  he  violates 
the  idiom  of  the  Greek,  by  making  angels  into  saints.'^  There 
is  something  too  little  in  this  sort  of  criticism  almost  to  de- 
serve notice.  As  a  specimen  alike  of  candour  and  scholarship 
it  merits  the  severest  rebuke.  I  have  heard  of  a  certain 
Professor  who  commenced  a  series  of  intended  classical 
publications,  with  the  Tusculan  questions  enriched  cumnotis 
et  annotationihus,  whose  errors,  and  ignorance  of  Latin 
idioms,  were  so  glaringly  exposed  by  another  more  erudite 
Professor,  as  to  make  him  desist  from  the  enterprise.  What 
Prof.  S.  means  by  *'  the  idiom  of  the  Greek"  being  violated 
by  my  translating  6t  ayioi  ayysXot,  the  holy  messengers,  i.  e. 
the  saints,  which  I  have  supported  by  reasons  stated,  I  will 
not  undertake  to  say,  but  I  must  ask  something  better 
than  an  ex  cathedra  judgment  from  onp  reproved  for 
ignorance  of  Latin  idioms,  before  I  submit  to  be  thus  con- 
demned. 

The  word  ayysXog  (angel)  denotes,  generic  ally,  a  messen- 
ger ;  01  ayioi  uyyEloi  means  the  holy  messengers.  Prof.  S. 
must  prove  that  invariably,  in  Greek,  this  last  phrase,  6t 
aywi  ayyeXoi,  means  the  immaterial,  spiritual  beings  employed 
as  messengers  by  God,  appellatively  and  distinctively  called 
bi  iiyyeloi,  the  angels,  before  he  can  charge  me  with  having 
violated  the  Greek  idiom  by  an  attempt  to  show  from  parallel 
passages  of  Scripture  that  "  the  holy  messengers  or  angels" 
bi  ayioi  ayyeXoi,  spoken  of  in  Matt.  xxv.  31,  are  not  this  class 
of  messengers,  but  the  saints.  He  must  also  show,  that  these 
latter  cannot  ever  be  employed  as  messengers.  He  can  do 
neither  of  these  things. 


106  PROF.  Stuart's  adroitness,  etc. 

On  p.  352  of  the  Dissertations,  the  reader  will  find  a  criti- 
cism on  this  subject,  supported  with  reasons,  showing  that 
parallel  passages  of  Scripture  raise  the  strong  presumption, 
at  least,  that  the  angels  or  messengers  who  shall  attend  the 
presence  of  Christ  at  His  coming,  and  when  seated  on  his 
throne,  will  be  the  saints,  the  holy  ones,  of  whom  Enoch,  Jude 
V.  14,  and  Zachariah  xiv.  5,  prophesied.  Prof  S.  has  taken  no 
notice  of  thi^  at  all,  but  says  I  have  violated  the  Greclc 
idiom!!  Now  the  words  in  Mat  xxv.  31,  are  bi  ayioi 
ayyeloi  ^ez  aviov,  the  holy  angels  with  him.  It  is  not  oi 
ayytXoi,  appellatively  and  emphatically  the  angels,  as  he 
would  evidently,  but  falsely — I  do  not  say  designedly — lead 
the  English  reader  to  think.  Winer,  in  his  Idioms  of  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament,  will  tell  him,  that  words 
qualifying  nouns,  which  have  the  article,  are  placed  either 
between  the  article  and  noun  or  after  the  noun,  if  the  quali- 
fying terms  be  adjectives  or  nouns'with  prepositions  :  ayioi^ 
therefore,  in  Matt.  xxv.  31,  is  the  qiialiji cation  of  the  liyyEXoi, 
messengers  that  shall  attend  the  coming  of  Christ — their 
peculiar,  distinctive  property,  or  honour. 

According  to  the  common  use  of  the  word,  ayioi  in  the 
New  Testament,  used  adjectively,  denotes  holy,  and  as  a 
noun,  saints  ;  it  is  the  special  quality  of  God's  elect,  i.  e., 
of  His  saints.  In  the  present  case  it  qualifies  the  angels  or 
messengers,  as  the  holy — the  saint-messengers.  Luke  ix, 
26  is  a  parallel  passage  with  this,  affording  a  like  exam- 
ple. But  in  Mark  viii.  38,  another  parallel  passage,  we  have 
an  example  of  the  second  method  of  arranging  the  words 
according  to  the  Greek  idiom  stated  by  Winer,  viz.,  the 
qualifying  noun  or  adjectjve  occurring  after  a  preposition, 
lieta  iav  ayytXcov  rmv  dyicov,  with  the  angels  or  messengers, 
the  holy  ones  or  saints.  In  the  one  case.  Matt.  xxv.  31, 
it  is  the  saint-messengers ;  in  the  other,  Mark  viii.  38,  the 
messenger  saints. 

We  can  see  a  very  sufficient  reason  for  the  use  of  ayioi 


IN    EVADING    A    MAIN    QUESTION.  107 

and  kyi(ov  in  this  connection,  as  the  words  designate  who 
are  to  be  the  attendant  messengers  of  Christ  at  His  coming, 
when  he  takes  his  seat,  and  while  sitting  on  his  throne. — 
There  is  none  whatever  in  Prof.  S.'s  supposition,  that  the 
angeh,  appellatively  and  emphatically  so  called,  the  incor- 
poreal, spiritual  beings  of  another  order  of  intelligence  from 
the  saints,  are  here  spoken  of  Moreover,  I  call  upon  him 
to  produce  one  single  passage  in  the  New  Testament  where 
they  are  tMis  designated  and  called,  emphatically  and  de- 
nominationally, the  holy  angels — hi  ayioi  ayytloi.  He  will 
find  one  case.  Acts  x.  22,  where  Cornelius  is  said  to  have 
been  warned  by  one  special  messenger,  vno  ayytXov  ayiov, 
^and  other  Greek  forms,  such  as  6i  ayytloi  zmv  ov^avcov, 
&-c.,but  never  except  in  the  cases  where  I  say,  according 
to  Winer,  the  Greek  idiom  designates  a  special,  distinctive 
qualification  of  the  messengers  of  Christ.  Prof  S.  has  as- 
sumed, and  referred  to  the  very  texts  in  dispute  in  proof,  that 
the  phrase,  the  holy  angels,  oi  ayioi  ayyeXot,  is  applied  to 
the  angels  of  Heaven,  the  angels  of  God,  i.  e.,  the  incorpo- 
real spirits  of  a  different  order  of  intelligence  from  the 
saints.     This  is  begging  the  question. 

If  Prof  S.  means  to  say,  that  I  have  violated  the  idiom  of 
the  Greek,  as  his  language  expressly  declares,  by  making 
ayyEloi  alone,  or  simply  and  emphatically,  refer  to  the  sairxts, 
and  as  thus  translating  the  word,  he  says  what  is  not  the  fact, 
and  deceives  his  reader.  He  has  his  choice  here,  either  of 
gross  misrepresentation,  or  of  excessive  and  highly  censura- 
ble carelessness.  If  he  means  to  say  that  I  violated  the 
idiom  of  the  Greek,  by  my  explanation  of  the  passages 
referred  to,  where  the  phrases  6i  ayioi  ayy^Xoi,  or  tiav 
ayysXojv  rmv  ayimVy  the  holy  messsengers,  or  the  messengers 
the  saints,  occur,  then  I  leave  those  who  can  appreciate  the 
value  and  accuracy  of  Winer,  on  the  idioms  of  the  New 
Testament,  to  say  whether  he  is  not  the  transgressor  here. 


loa 


ETC. 


and  not  I.     If  the  reader  thinks  this  to  be  severe,  I  have 
no  other  apology  to  offer,  than  the  remark  of  Juvenah 

Omne  animi  vitium  tanto  conspectius  in  se 
Crimen  babet,  quanto  major,  qui  prseerat,  habetur. 
The  fault,  so  much  t^e  worse,  is  always  deemed, 
As  he  that  errs,  for  greatness  is  esteemed. 

I  give  another  specimen  of  Prof  S.'s  misrepresentations. 
He  says,  App.  p.  171  :  "  (2.)  Christ  says  no  more  about  the 
resurrection  of  the  bodies  of  saints  here,  than  he  does  about 
that  of  sinners.  He  says  in  truth  nothing  of  either  ;  know- 
ing of  course,  that  the  mass  of  his  hearers  took  the  resurrect 
tion  for  granted."  If  he  means  to  say  that  I  have  said  the 
contrary,  he  is  not  sustained  by  the  fact.  I  have  said,  how- 
ever, that  the  6i  ayioi  ayytXoi,  the  holy  messengers,  whom  He 
brings  with  Him,  according  to  ''  the  Greek  idiom"  are  the 
saints ;  and  of  course,  if  that  be  the  fact,  the  resurrection  of 
their  bodies  occurs  at  this  epoch,  seeing  it  is  explicitly  taught 
by  Paul,  1  Thess.  v.  16,  who  asserts  di  priority  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  saints,  but  how  long,  whether  one  hour  or  one 
thousand  years  before  the  wicked,  says  not.  If  Prof  S. 
says  simultaneously  or  immediately  after,  let  him  prove  it, 
especially  before  he  charges  me  with  error  here,  as  he  has 
done. 

A  third  and  still  more  glaring  specimen  of  misrepresen- 
tation occurs  in  what  follows:  '*  (3.)  Christ  says  that  all 
nations  are  to  be  gathered  before  him ;  Mr.  D.  says  that 
only  persecutors  of  Jewish  Christians  are  to  he  judged,  and 
these  while  in  the  flesh."  There  must  be  some  unaccoun- 
table obtuseness  of  perception  in  Prof  S.'s  mind,  to  admit 
of  his  being  betrayed  into  sucji  unfounded  assertions.  He 
knows,  or,  if  he  reads  with  ordinary  attention  what  I 
have  written,  he  could  not  fail  to  know,  that  I  have  not 
used,  as  synonymous,  the  words  *'  gathered  before  Him,"  and 
*'  judged,"  as  he  has  done.     The  reader  will  see  in  the  Dis- 


IN    EVADING    A    MAIN    QUESTION.  109 

sertations,  pp.  3^S,&lc.,  a  careful  examination  of  the  import 
of  the  expression,  ''gathered  before  Him,"  and  reasons  also 
to  show  that  it  cannot  mean  the  universal  promiscuous  resur- 
rection of  the  dead,  but  something  very  different.  Prof  S. 
pays  no  attention  to  this ;  but,  assuming  his  own  notion  of 
the  process  of  the  day  of  judgment  to  be  correct  and  scrip- 
tural, he  uses  it  for  the  purpose  of  charging  me  with  having 
contradicted  the  blessed  Redeemer. 

I  appeal  here  to  his  own  sense  of  justice,  and  to  every 
honourable  mind,  to  say,  what  such  conduct  should  be 
called.  I  have  not  denied,  that  all  nations  shall  be  gathered 
before  the  Saviour, — not  even  in  Prof  Stuart's  sense  of  a 
final,  promiscuous,  universal  resurrection  of  the  dead.  I 
have  not  said  that  only  persecutors  of  Jews  and  Christians 
are  to  be  judged,  and  these  while  in  the  flesh.  I  challenge 
him  to  the  proof  of  his  assertions,  and  charge  him  with 
having,  either  totally  misapprehended  the  plain  and  obvious 
import  of  my  language  and  remarks,  or  with  having  egre- 
giously  misrepresented  me,  and  deceived  his  reader. 

I  give  the  reader  another  specimen.  "  The  separation" 
says  Prof  S.  "  of  the  two  parties — sheep  and  goats — is  affirm- 
ed by  Christ  to  be  complete,  universal,  and  of  eternal  dura- 
tion, Matt.  XXV.  32-46 :  Mr.  D.  makes  it  the  tvoric  of  centuries, 
a  long  and  difficult  and  gradual  process,  and  finally  extends 
it  onli/  to  persecutors  of  Jews  and  Christians."  Before  he 
can  charge  me  with  contradicting  the  Saviour,  he  should 
have  provedj^rs^,  that  the  separation  of  which  Christ  speaks, 
between  the  sheep  and  goats,  is  that  of  individuals,  and  not 
of  nations ;  second,  that  it  takes  place  instantaneously ; 
third,  that  it  occurs  at  the  time  of  the  universal  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  of  which  John  speaks.  Rev.  xx.  1 — 6.  This  he 
has  not  even  attempted. 

I  have  shown,  see  Dissertations  p.  342,  343,  359, — 365, 
that  there  are  such  radical  differences  between  the  account 
of  Christ's  separating  between  the  sheep  and  the  goats,  and 


ilO  PROF,  stuart's  adroitness,  etc. 

John's  account  of  the  final  day  of  retribution  after  the  Mil- 
lennium, when  the  dead,  small  and  great,  shall  be  personally 
judged,  is  to  prove  they  cannot  refer  to  the  same  identical 
scenes  and  transactions.  And  as  to  the  process  of  separa- 
tion being  the  work  of  centuries,  Slc,  ^s  Prof.  S.  affirms  that 
I  teach,  all  I  have  to  say  is,  that  I  have  done  no  such  thing, 
and  challenge  him  to  th6  proof.  Were  I  disposed  to  adopt 
Prof.  Stuart's  style  of  argument,  by  which  he  seeks  to  con- 
vict me  of  contradicting  Christ,  £tnd  to  apply  it  to  him,  how 
easy  would  it  be  for  me  to  make  out,  a  far  stronger,  and 
more  striking  case  against  him,  than  he  has  attempted 
against  me  ! 

Thus  Professor  S.  has  said  (1,)  that  there  will  be  one  gene- 
rsd,  universal,  and,  if  not  simultaneous,  at  least  rapidly  suc- 
ceeding, resurrection  and  congregating  of  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked  before  the  throne  of  God.  But  Paul  says  the  dead 
in  Christ  shall  rise  first.  And  John  says  the  souls  of  the 
martyrs  "  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ  a  thousand  years, 
hut  the  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not  again  until  the  thousand 
years  were  finished  J  ^     Rev.  xx.  4,  5. 

(2.)  Professor  S.  says  that  there  will  and  can  be  no  visi- 
ble kingdom  of  Christ  and  his  raised  saints  on  the  earth  ; 
but  the  glorified  saints  themselves,  redeemed  to  God  out  of 
every  kindred  and  tongue  and  people  and  nation,  say, 
''  Christ  hath  made  us  unto  our  God  kings  and  priests ;  and 
WE  SHALL  REIGN  ON  THE  EARTH."     Rev.  v.  9,  10. 

(3.)  Professor  S.  says  that  Jesus  Christ  will  not  come  in 
the  clouds  of  heaven  personally  and  visibly  to  establish  his 
kingdom  on  the  earth.  But  Daniel  says,  "  I  beheld  one  like 
the  Son  of  Man  come  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  &c.,  and 
there  was  given  him  dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom, 
that  all  people,  nations,  and  languages  should  serve  Him." 
Dan.  vii.  13,  14.  Other  examples  might  be  added.  I  have 
just  as  good  a  right  to  assume  as  he  has.  If  he  accounts  it 
unjust  thus  to  charge  him,  what,  I  ask,  makes  that  unjust  to- 


IN    EVADING   A    MAIN    QUESTION.  Ill 

ward  him  that  is  not  toward  me?  He  actually,  without 
show  of  argument,  assumes.  I  have  done  no  such  thing, 
but  supported  my  positions  by  Scriptural  argument,  and  criti- 
cal, philological,  exegetical  exposition. 

The  reader  is  now  prepared  to  see  how  perfectly  gratui- 
tous are  Professor  S.'s  charges  against  me,  of  contradicting 
Christ,  of  violating  the  Greek  idiom,  of  foisting  in  this  ot 
that,  to  meet  my  purpose, — of  making  *'  the  process  (and  of 
course  the  punishment)  a  mere  temporal  and  terrestrial  mat- 
ter," and  of  continuing  the  connection  of  the  sheep  and 
goats  for  centuries  after  a  final  and  eternal  separation  is  as- 
serted by  Christ  to  be  made.  What  "  process"  Professor  S. 
means,  whether  of  the  resurrection,  or  judgment,  or  what, 
he  does  not  say,  nor  can  any  one  divine  from  his  language. 
But  he  asks,  "  What  shall  we  say  now  to  such  argumenta- 
tion as  this?"  That  is,  as  he  has  stated  it  to  be.  I  answer, 
it  is  all  false — the  creations  of  his  own  excited  and  per- 
turbed fancy — and  say,  in  relation  to  his  dreamings,  in  his 
own  words :  "  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  in  any  or  all  the 
adventurous  works  on  the  prophecies,  which  have  hitherto 
made  their  appearance,  any  thing  which  exceeds  this,  either 
in  boldness  of  assertion,  or  in  unfounded  and  presumptuous 
criticism  and  philology.^'     App.  p.  17^. 

He  assumes  certain  things  to  be  true,  which  he  has  not 
proved,  nor  attempted  to  prove ;  he  applies  his  assumptions  to 
my  definitions,  criticisms  and  exposition  of  the  Saviour's 
language ;  he  "  foists  into  the  account  just  so  much  and  no 
more,"  of  my  real  meaning,  "  as  suits  his  purpose,"  and,  as 
it  were  saying  unto  me, 

Udum  et  molle  tutum  es — 
Soft  and  moist  clay  thou  art — 

he  works  up  the  vessel  to  dishonour,  for  his  own  and  read- 
ers' entertainment.  "  All  that  is  said,"  says  he,  "  in  Scrip- 
ture with  respect  to  his  (Christ's)  coming  to  destroy  Jerusa- 


112  ppoF.  Stuart's  adroitness,  etc. 

lem,  and  coming  to  vindicate  his  chosen,  &c.,  is  applied  by 
him,  with  little  exception,  to  the  anti-Millennial  coming  of 
Christ,  and  applied  in  what  he  names  the  literal  sense." 
App.  p.  172.  It  remains  for  Professor  S.  to  prove,  that  the 
Scriptures  ever  speak  of  Christ's  coming  in  the  sense  he 
here  assumes  they  do,  and  that  the  passages  I  have  cited,  in 
proof  of  his  second  visible  personal  coming,  mean  what  he 
SAYS  they  do.  He  is  not  allowed  thus  to  try  the  question 
in  dispute,  and  then  turn  round,  impertinently,  and  raise  the 
shout  of  victory.  He  may  think  he  has  perfectly  triumphed, 
and  sent  through  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land,  such  a 
version  of  my  views  as  will  secure  from  the  hundred  trumpet 
tongues  of  crying  fame  my  unavoidable  overpowering  con- 
demnation, so  as  to  make  me  regret  the  folly  and  rashness 
of  which  he  has  accused  me ;  but 

Conscia  mens  recti,  famoB  mendaeia  ridet. 

The  mind  with  conscious  sense  of  right, 
May  hear  the  crowd  its  thoughts  revile. 
While  in  its  calm  sustaining  might 
At  all  the  lies  of  fame  can  smile. 


■::smm^^^m.:'^  ■  ■'■  95"i^'«qi'^-  '■  ^H^mm 


CHAPTER   XII. 


PROF.    STUART  S    CHARGES    OF    THE    WANT  OF    EXPLICITNESS. 

The  reader,  by  this  time,  will  not  fail  to  be  surprised 
that  a  writer,  who  is  himself  so  loose,  and  far  from  being 
explicit,  should  bring  a  charge  of  this  nature  agaipst  another, 
who  thus  far  at  least  has  shown,  that  with  what  other  things 
he  may  be  charged  this  is  not  appropriate.  But  that  sur- 
prise will  quickly  cease,  when  he  learns  that  the  charge  is 
not  founded  so  much  upon  what  has  been,  as  upon  what 
has  not  been  written.  sy 

Wisjirst  count  is,  that  in  giving  the  general  outline  of 
the  Millenarian's  views  of  scriptural  prophecy — one  item  of 
which  is  the  expectation  of  a  Revived  Theocracy  in  this 
world,  having  Jerusalem  for  its  centre  and  capital,  and  ex- 
tending as  efficiently  and  fully  its  blessings  to  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth,  as  the  old  Jewish  Theocracy  did  to  the 
tribes  of  Israel, — I  spoke  only  of  "  rites  of  worship  adapted 
to  the  dispensation  in  which  Jerusalem  and  the  Jewish 
nation  are  to  stand  pre-eminent  among  the  nations,"  and 
did  not  ''say  plainly,"  as  he  would  have  me,  "that  the  i  | 
Levitical  ritual  of  sacrifices,  and  offerings,  and  ceremonies,  ^  , 
is  to  be  reinstated^  This  he  has  been  pleased^  to  ask  his 
reader  to  ''  observe,"  as  proof,  "  how  guardedly"  I  have 
expressed  myself,  lest  perchance  Prof  S.  or  somebody  else 
might  convict  me  of  "  a  point  blank  contradiction  of  what 
the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has  affirmed  and 
taught." 

Now  this  is  a  grievous  charge.    In  reply   to  it,   it  were 
enough  for  me  to  state,  that  the  charge,  true  or  false,  has 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  leading  object   and  argu-      j 
ments  of  the  Dissertations.     I  have  unciertaken  to  investi- 


^ 


114  PROF.  Stuart's  charges  of 

gate  the  language  and  statements  of  the  prophets  relative 
to  the  second  coming  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ, 
and  affirmed  and  taught,  that  the  fair,  candid,  and  consist- 
ent application  of  the  true  principles  of  grammatico-histori- 
cal  interpretation,  bring  out,  as  the  result,  that  that  coming 
will  be  pre-millennial.  In  doing  so,  I  have  incidentally  given 
an  outline  of  the  views  of  Millenarians,  one  item  of  whose 
belief  is,  that  a  Theocracy  shall  be  established  in  the  world. 
To  give  the  details  of  their  views,  the  arguments  in  support 
of  them,  my  own  views  and  reasonings,  or  any  appeal  to 
the  Scriptures  on  the  subject,  I  have  not  even  attempted ; 
because  not  necessary  to  the  general  argument,  nor  em- 
braced in  the  specific  object  of  the  Dissertations.  And  yet, 
for  not  doing  this,  I  am  accused  of  the  "  want  of  explicit- 
ness."  But  how  does  he  attempt  to  establish  this  charge  ? 
By  direct  quotations  of  any  thing  I  have  written?  By  a 
careful  analysis  of  any  of  my  arguments  1  By  fair  and  legi- 
timate inferences  from  any  positions  I  have  advanced  ?  By 
no  means.  This  would  have  been  a  very  explicit  and  ho- 
nourable mpde  of  procedure.  But  the  reader  will  be  dis- 
appointed, if  he  expects  any  such  thing.  It  is  by  a  process 
quite  tortuous  and  complicated,  the  very  reverse  of  this, 
that  Prof.  S.  attempts  to  establish  his  charge  of  a  want  of 
explicitness  against  me. 

.  First,  he  assumes  that  the  Jews  will  not  be  restored  to 
their  former  relation  to  God,  return  to  Palestine,  and  en- 
joy the  benefits  of  a  theocratic  government.  See  App.  p, 
174.  All  the  point  and  force  of  his  objection  against 
what  he  calls  my  ''  views  and  system,"  are  in  this  assump- 
tion. With  far  more  assurance  of  truth  and  propriety  of 
argument  than  he  has  exhibited  when  he  charges  me  with 
contradicting  Christ  and  Paul,  might  I  charge  him  with 
"  neither  more  nor  less  than  a  point  blank  contradiction  of 
what  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has  affirmed  and 
taught,"  on  the  express  authority  of  the  Spirit  of  God  speaking 


THE    WANT   OF    EXPLICITNESS.  115 

by  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  that,  by  the  very  covenant  described 
by  the  latter,  referred  to  and  in  part  quoted  by  the  former, 
God  has  stipulated  and  pledged^Hinjself  that  if  the  sun  and 
moon,  those  ordinances  of  God,  depart  from  before  Him, 
then  the  seed  of  Israel  shall  cease  from  being  a  nation  for 
ever  "  Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord  that  the  city 
shall  be  built  to  the  Lord  from  the  tower  of  Hananeel  unto  the 
gate  of  the  corner,  and  it  shall  nothe  plucked  up  nor  throvi'n 
down  any  more  for  ever.     Jer.  xxxi.  31 — 40. 

I  am  not  now  going  to  argue  this  point.  The  restoration 
and  return  of  the  Jews  to  Palestine,  their  conversion  and 
re-establishment  in  their  own  land  as  a  nation,  are  points 
so  clearly,  fully,  explicitly  taught  in  the  Bible,  that  nothing 
but  the  most  ingenious  efforts,  not  of  criticism,  but  metaphys- 
ical, philosophical  exposition,  and  allegorizing  the  predic- 
tions, can  set  aside  the  scriptural  evidence  on  this  point.  Prof. 
S.  has  the  countenance  and  support  of  few.compared  with  tlie 
mass.  He  and  Mr.  Miller,  with  his  followers,  stand  here  pre- 
cisely on  the  same  ground,  and  adopt  the  same  principles 
of  interpretation.  He  is  infinitely  nearer  to  them  whom  he 
so  severely  denounces  than  I. 

The  only  important  difference  I  see  between  them  is,  that 
Mr.  Miller,  with  precisely  the  views  of  Prof.  S.  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  dayof  judgment,  brings  it  here  in  a  fewmonths- — 
before  the  Millennium — while  the  latter  defers  it  till  after 
the  one  thousand  years  ;  and  that  while  Mr.  Miller  makes 
the  righteous  rise  one  thousand  years  before  the  wicked, 
Prof  S.  brings  them  all  out  of  their  graves  simultaneously. 

It  is  enough  for  me  to  take  such  passages  as  Deut.  xxx.  1 — 
10,  xxxii.  26 — 43,  Jer.  xxxii.  36 — 44,  xxxiii.  7 — 26;  Ezek. 
xxxvii.  20 — ^28  ;  Zech.  x.  6 — 12,  xii.  2 — 4,  and  others  parallel 
with  them,  and  having  learned,  by  those  parts  of  the  predic- 
tions already  fulfilled,  the  principles  of  interpretation,  that 
they  have  been  verified  in  literal  historical  realities,  accord- 
ing totheplaingrammatico-historical  meaning  of  the  language 


116 

apply  the  very  same  principles  to  the  parts  not  yet  fulfilled,  and 
look  for  the  literal  historical  reality  of  the  events  predicted. 
It  is  insulting  the  understanding  of  men,  to  tell  us,  that  they 
have  been  all  actually  already  fulfilled,  and  allegorize,  phi- 
losophize, and  generalize,  to  make  them  suit  this  or  the 
other  theory  or  speculation.  Prof  S.,  in  so  doing,  is  guilty 
of  the  very  thing  he  so  justly  and  severely  reprobates  and 
condemns  in  his  Hints.  It  will  cost  him  a  vast  amount  of 
time  and  labour ;  and  I  may  say  to  him, 

Ssepe  stilum  vertas,  iterum  quoe  digna  leglsint 
Scripturus — 

Would  you  the  reader's  just  esteem  engage, 
Correct  with  frequent  care  your  blotted  page — 

before  he  can  prove,  what  now  he  so  dogmatically  and  au- 
thoritatively assumes,  that  the  prophets  did  not  mean  to 
teach  the  literal  restoration  and  re-establishment  of  Judah 
and  Israel,  in  the  land  which  "  God  covenanted  with  their 
fathers  to  give  to  them  for  an  everlasting  possession,"  but 
meant  something  entirely  and  fundamentally  different  from 
the  plain,  grammatical  import  of  their  language. 

Having,  however,  assumed  this,  in  order  to  make  good  his 
charge,  his  next  step,  which  we  have  already  seen  he  is  wont 
to  take,  is  to  excite  prejudice  against  my  alleged  views,  by 
telling  the  reader  to  observe  my  extreme  caution  "  hot  to 
appear  flatly  to  contradict  an  epistle  which  is  mainly  occu- 
pied with  taking  down  and  removing  that  very  building 
which  Mr.  D.  covertly  endeavors  to  rear  up  and  adorn  anew." 
App.  p.  175.  Having  thus  prepossessed  the  reader's  mind 
with  false  views  and  prejudices,  he  comes  to  tlie  direct 
proof — all  turning  upon  the  meaning  he  chooses  to  give  to 
the  terms  theocracy  and  rites  of  worship,  which  I  have  used 
in  stating  the  views  of  certain  Millenarian  writers.  "  Ob- 
serve how  guardedly  this  is  expressed"  by  him  :  "  A  Theo- 
cracy and  rites  of  loorship  cannot  FAIRLY  mean,  IN 
THE   IDIOM  OF   THEOLOGIANS   AND   CRITICS, 


% 


THE    "WANT    OP    EXPLICITNESS.  117 

any  thing  less  than  this ;"  that  is,  as  he  most  unequivocally 
means  to  be  understood,  the  identical  Mosaic,  Levitical  rites , 
which  Paul  says  "  serve  unto  the  example  and  shadow  of 
heavenly  things,"  and  are  "  the  figures  of  the  true."  "  The 
hasty  reader,"  he  admits,  "may  not,  perhaps,  at  first  view, 
discern  it;"  that  is,  what  he  charges  on  me,  and,  therefor^, 
forsooth,  he  must  resort  to  "  the  idiom  of  theologians  and 
critics,  to  determine  what  a  Theocracy  and  rites  of  worship 
must  mean.  This  is  a  new  rule  for  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  which  may  suit  the  dark  ages  of  popery,  when  for 
centuries  they  had  the  only  key,  and  it  was  the  prescrip- 
tive right  of  theologians  and  critics  to  say  what  the  Bible 
did  mean  :  but  it  will  be  laughed  to  scorn  by  the  sober,  in- 
telligent, reflecting  laymen  and  members  of  the  church, 
who,  however  they  may  render  the  honour  which  may  be  due 
to  "  theologians  and  critics,"  will  never  consent  to  adopt 
their  idiom  in  order  to  determine  what  a  Theocracy  and 
rites  of  worship^  or  any  thing  else  revealed  in  the  Scripture, 
cannot  or  must  not  mean.  By  the  aid  of  this  new  rule  of 
interpretation,  proposed  for  the  special  benefit  of  biblical 
professors,  theologians  and  critics,  he  brings  out  his  con- 
clusion, and  fixes  on  me,  as  he  thinks  indelibly,  his  accusa- 
tion :  "  In  so  many  words,  plain  and  unequivocal,  the  Old 
Testament,  repeatedly,  and  in  a  great  variety  of  ways,  (I 
mean,  of  course,  when  it  is  literally  interpreted,  as  Mr.  D. 
would  have  it  in  other  places,)  declares  the  renewal  of  the 
Leviticfil  rites  in  connection  with  the  return  of  the  Jews." 
Here  we  are  at  issue  on  a  point  of  fact.  I  say  it  does  not : 
nor  do  the  passages  in  Isaiah  Ixvi.  16 — 24,  or  Ezekiel  xliv. 
and  seq.,  to  which  Prof  S.  refers. 

I  admit  that  Jerusalem,  and  the  temple,  shall  be  rebuilt 
and  a  new  division  of  Palestine  take  place  for  the  tribes, 
and  that  the  special  ordinances  detailed  by  Ezekiel,  "  even 
the  very  measures  of  the  city,  temple,  and  possessions  of 
the  Levites,  as  also  the  names  of  the  city  gates  and  every 

7 


118  PROF.  STUART*S  CHARGES  OF 

thing  of  this  nature,  are  all  drawn  out  with  exactness,  like 
the  diagram  of  a  building,  or  of  a  plot  of  ground ;  so  that 
any  doubt  as  to  what  is  to  be  the  future  arrangement  of  all 
these  matters,  is  out  of  the  question  on  the  literal  ground  of 
Mr.  D."  App.  p.  175.  But  what  then  ?  It  is  a  perfect  non 
sequitur,  which  Prof.  S.  draws  by  way  of  inference,  tJiem- 
Jore  the  identical  Theocracy  and  ritual  of  Moses,  shall  be  re- 
vived. Has  he  never  read  and  compared  Ezekiel  and  Le- 
viticus, and  seen  the  wonderful  difference  ?  A  Theocracy, 
with  a  ritual  of  commemorative  sacrifices,  and  institutions, 
devoid  of  any  mortal  high  priest,  especially  adapted  to  the 
state  of  things  in  the  world,  to  be  developed  in  the  provi- 
dence of  God  on  the  restoration  of  the  Jews,  and  in  every 
respect  much  more  glorious,  cannot  be  called  the  same 
identical  economy  of  Moses,  which  Paul  says  was  but  a 
type  and  shadow  of  that  which  was  to  come,  the  command- 
ment of  which  previously  given  has  been  disannulled  for  the 
weakness  and  unprofitableness  thereof,  now  that  the  true 
High  Priest,  after  the  order  of  Melchizedec,  has  "  not  entered 
into  the  holy  places  made  with  hands,  the  figures  of  the 
true,  but  into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence  of 
God  for  us" — and  where  he  is  discharging  for  us  the  offices 
of  High  Priest  within  the  veil,  seated  "  on  the  right  hand  of 
the  Majesty  in  the  Heavens,"  "  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
throne  of  God,"  "  after  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins, 
for  ever  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God,  from  hence- 
forth expecting  till  his  enemies  be  made  his  footstool,"  when 
He  shall  return  Priest  and  King  upon  Ms  oum  throne,  and 
give  his  raised  saints,  to  sit  down  with  Him  on  His  throne, 
as  He  is  now  sat  down  with  His  Father  on  his  throne.  If 
Prof  S.  thinks,  that  any  sacrificial  rites,  or  theocratic  in- 
stitutions, are  inconsistent  in  themselves,  let  him  show  what 
greater  impropriety  there  is,  or  can  be,  in  commemorative 
sacrifices,  than  in  prospective  sacrifices.  But  it  is  not  for 
him  or  for  me  to  judge  here.     The  question,  is,  what  saith 


THE    WANT    OF    EXPLICITNESS.  119 

the  Lord  ?  We  must  guard  against  any  preconceived  notions 
whatever,  any  assumptions  and  postulates  of  our  own,  and 
inquire  at  the  mouth  of  the  Lord,  applying  to  the  interpre- 
tation of  His  language,  the  principles  which  He  himself 
hath  taught  us,  and  sanctioned  by  his  holy  providence,  ful- 
filling the  predictions  as  far  as  the  dispensations  of  his  grace 
have  been  developed  in  this  world. 

He  thinks  to  terrify  me,  by  his  inferences,  and  doubtless 
has  persuaded  himself,  that  I  have  studied  reserve,  if  not 
something  worse,  on  this  subject,  for  which  he  charges  me 
with  want  of  explicitness.  I  fear  not  to  follow,  where  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  leads.  I  am  under  no  apprehensions  about 
the  results,  that  will  flow  from  the  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion, which  God  Himself  has  authorized  to  be  applied  to 
his  word.  T  care  not  here  to  defend  the  position  into  which 
he  thinks  he  has  driven  me. 

I  have  said  and  taught  that  the  Millennial  dispensation, 
as  set  forth  in  the  word  of  God,  is  a  new  dispensation,  mira- 
culously to  be  introduced,  as  all  the  former  were,  having 
its  own  peculiar,  glorious,  and  wonderful  features,  which, 
however  Prof  S.  and  I  may  be  unable  to  understand  now, 
the  day  itself  will  abundantly  declare.  I  value,  infinitely 
more,  the  word  of  Jesus  Christ,  than  all  the  philosophy  and 
sophistry  of  the  schools  ;  and  dread  nothing  more,  than  to 
exalt  my  preconceived  opinions  of  the  nature  of  things,  as  a 
standard  or  rule,  by  which  to  judge  of  the  glorious  things, 
"  which  eye  hath  not  seen,  ear  hath  not  heard,  and  of  which 
it  hath  not  entered  into  the  heart  of  man  to  conceive.'^  I 
confide  implicitly  in  the  wisdom  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
perfect  knowledge  he  has  of  human  nature,  and  the  ease  and 
success  with  which  he  can  adapt  his  own  institutions  and 
arrangements,  to  the  compound  nature  of  man,  and  bring  the 
benign  sway  of  Heaven  to  bear  directly  on  this  revolted 
world,  when  the  time  comes  for  Satan  to  be  violently  ex- 
pelled, retributive  justice  executed  on  the  nations,  and  the 


120 

Kingdom  of  Heaven   established  in   its   visibility   on  this 
earth. 

I  know  no  safe  depositary  of  power,  among  mortal  men, 
for  the  purposes  of  government.  Tyranny  and  oppression,  in 
church  and  state,  under  every  form  and  organization  of 
government,  social,  civil,  ecclesiastical,  monarchical,  aristo- 
cratical  or  democratic,  have  sooner  or  later  characterized 
the  governments  of  earth,  and  have  done  so  from  the  begin- 
ning of  this  fallen  world.  Nor  do  I  see,  from  any  experience 
of  the  past,  from  any  developments  at  the  present,  from  any 
peculiarities  in  our  own  republican  system  and  church 
organizations,  any  pledge,  security,  or  reasonable  prospect, 
that  the  existing  nations  of  the  earth,  in  their  governmental 
character  and  capacity,  are  ever  going  to  be  brought  under 
the  dominion  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  simple,  faithful  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God.  The  gospel  has  been 
preached  for  1800  years,  and  powerful  revivals  of  religion,  and 
great  and  extensive  reformations  have  occurred  ;  but  where 
is  there,  or  has  there  been  a  solitary  nation,  which,  in  its 
organization,  legislation,  administration  of  justice,  execution 
of  law,  and  prosecution  of  its  interests,  has  recognized  the 
supremacy  of  Jesus  Christ,  owned  and  honoured  His  sway, 
and  given  a  specimen  of  what  many  persuade  themselves  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  is  destined  to  accomplish  morally, 
socially,  politically,  and  nationally,  in  this  world  ?  The 
sheet-anchor  of  the  world's  security  and  ultimate  blessedness 
is  in  the  covenant  of  peace,  announced  to  Abraham,  rati- 
fied to  him,  and  confirmed  to  all  that  have  like  precious  faith 
with  him. 

It  is  the  sway  of  Heaven  alone,  that  can  redeem  this 
fallen  world.  Mortal  men  are  not  safe  depositaries  of  power. 
The  saints,  that  have  been  disciplined  by  affliction,  that  have 
suffered  in  this  world,  and  by  the  grace  of  God  have  been  ' 
taught  to  deny  themselves,  that  have  been  subsequently 
trained  in  Heaven,  ^nd  rendered  incapable  of  ambition,  envy. 


THE    WANT    OF    EXPLICITNESS.  121 

pride,  malice,  revenge,  &c.,  and  shall  be  associated  with 
Jesus  Christ  Himself,  as  his  kings  and  priests,  living  and 
reigning  with  Him,  can  be  safely  intrusted  with  the  domin- 
ion of  the  nations.  And  when  my  Bible  tells  me  that  at 
the  coming  of  Christ,  the  corrupt  powers  of  earth  shall  be 
destroyed,  and  the  power  and  the  kingdom,  and  the  great- 
ness of  the  dominion  under  the  whole  Heaven  shall  be  given 
to  the  people  of  the  saints  of  the  Most  High,  I  rejoice  in  the 
prospect,  and  rest  upon  the  promise,  and  the  covenant  of 
God,  and  while  I  feel  anxious  to  tell,  to  every  mortal  living, 
the  good  news,  to  preach  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom,  and  to 
save  as  many  as  possible  from  the  wrath  to  come,  I  trouble 
not  myself  about  any  difficulties  or  inconsistencies  that  may 
occur  in  my  imaginings  ;  but  rest  assured,  that  the  blessed 
Redeemer  will  do  all  things  well,  and  accomplish,  to  the 
very  letter,  all  His  plans,  and  all  that  He  has  promised.  Prof. 
S.  may  smile  or  sneer  at  my  faith,  just  as  he  pleases,  but  I 
defer  with  infinitely  greater  reverence,  to  the  authority  that 
has  enjoined  us  to  "  be  followers  of  them  who  through  faith 
and  patience  inherit  the  promises." 

The  reader  will  perceive,  therefore,  from  this  frank  ex- 
posure of  the  feelings  of  my  heart,  how  little  I  am  affected 
by,  and  how  utterly  out  of  place  and  imbecile  I  regard,  his 
complaints,  and  the  numerous  questions  which  Professor  S. 
has  propounded  on  pp.  175,  176,  in  reference  to  the  minute 
detailed  state  of  things,  to  arise  in  this  world,  under  the  new 
dispensation.  Conjecture  might  be  busy ;  but  it  would  not 
profit.  All  I  have  to  say  is,  that  his  questions  might  be 
multiplied  without  end,  and  ninety-nine  hundredths  of  them, 
like  those  he  has  already  propounded,  will  resolve  themselves 
into  censurable  ignorance,  discontented  curiosity,  or  carping 
censoriousness. 

Percontatorem  fugiio  nam  garrulus  idem  iste. 

Th'  impertinent  be  sure  to  hate  ; 
Who  loves  to  ask,  will  love  to  prate, 


122  PROF.  Stuart's   charges  of 

is  an  admonition  extremely  appropriate.  But  lest  the  reader 
may  think  that  I  am  disposed  to  evade  his  questions,  I  re- 
mark, that  already  has  he  his  answer,  as  to  all  that  I  have 
not  told  about  Jerusalem  to  be  rebuilt,  the  new  or  heavenly 
Jerusalem,  where  it  alights,  who  live  there  beside  Christ, 
and  what  sort  of  intercourse  or  relation  they  maintain.  The 
specific  topic  of  the  book  did  not  require  it.  Some  of  his 
questions  I  have  already  answered,  by  showing  that  they  are 
founded  on  absolute  misstatements  of  what  I  have  said, 
particularly  those  which  he  has  marshalled  under  No.  (10.) 
To  this  I  may  add,  that,  if  the  entire  dispensation  is  mi- 
raculous, utterly  beyond  any  thing  we  know  in  the  present 
stage  of  human  developments,  it  were  impertinent  to  pro- 
pound inquiries,  based  on  our  limited  knowledge  and  expe- 
rience. Paul,  who  had  a  glimpse  of  the  heavenly  state, 
whether  in  the  body  or  out  of  the  body  he  could  not  tell,  but 
who  was  caught  up  to  paradise,  lets  us  know,  that  what  he 
heard  was  incommunicable.  Professor  S.  may  find  himself 
trespassing  on  a  province,  that  pertains  not  to  him,  by  in- 
dulging his  inquisitiveness.  Yet  still,  I  may  add,  that,  if  he 
will  but  read  and  study  the  prophetic  scriptures,  in  the  sim- 
plicity of  faith,  with  an  humble,  teachable,  and  prayerful 
spirit,  applying  the  principles  of  interpretation  God  has  sanc- 
tioned, instead  of  philosophy  falsely  so  called,  he  will  learn  a 
great  deal  of  which  he  is  now  ignorant,  to  enlighten  his  mind 
as  well  as  to  refresh  and  comfort  his  heart.  It  is  an  admo- 
nition, not  for  purposes  of  style,  but  inestimable  information, 
that  I  care  not  how  often  or  how  earnestly  it  is  pressed  upon 
myself;  and  there  want  not  indications  in  Professor  S.'s 
Hints,  that  it  is,  at  least,  as  appropriate  to  him  as  to 
myself: 

Vos  exemplaria  (ista) 
Nocturna  versate  manu,  versate  diurna. 

Make  more  the  (prophets)  your  supreme  delight, 
Read  them  by  day  and  study  them  by  night. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

PROF.  Stuart's  charge  of  "  apparent  inconsistencies 

AND     INCONGRUITIES." 

This  is  the  second  count,  in  his  bill  of  complaints  against 
*'  Mr.  D.'s  statements."  The  reader  will  observe,  that 
it  is  even  more  guarded  than  the  other.  Whatever  incon- 
sistencies and  incongruities,  he  thinks  he  has  detected,  he 
ventures  no  further  than  to  call  them  "  apparent.'^  It  is  the 
commonest  thing  imaginable,  for  apparent  inconsistencies 
to  be  discovered,  on  a  closer  and  more  candid  examination, 
to  be  but  apparent,  not  real.  The  infidel  and  skeptic 
charges  them  upon  the  apostles,  and  prophets,  and  Christ 
Himself.  The  Bible  in  their  view  is  but  a  tissue  of  "  in- 
consistencies and  incongruities." 

In  attending  to  a  charge  of  this  sort,  therefore,  we  must 
always  have  regard  to  the  temper  and  design  of  the  accuser. 
He  may  look  through  a  distempered  medium, — may  have 
on  magnifying  or  "  coloured  glasses,"  or  have  the  very  or- 
gans of  vision  imperfectly  developed,  so  as  to  "  see  men  as 
trees  walking."  The  reader  is  prepared  to  believe,  by  this 
time,  that  many  of  Prof.  Stuart's  alleged  apparent  incon- 
sistencies in  "  Mr.  D.'s  statements,"  that  is,  as  they  ap- 
pear to  him,  may  be  accounted  for,  by  the  influence  of  his 
own  imperfect  vision,  and  the  distorted  medium  through 
which  he  contemplates  them. 

In  reply  to  this  charge,  it  may  be  proper  to  remark,  that 
Prof  S.  has,  in  some  instances,  assumed  as  true,  what  is 
denied,  and  what  he  has  not  attempted  to  prove ;  and  on 
these  false  assumptions,  founds  his  charge  of  inconsistency, 
&-C.  If  I  should  assume  a  white  man  to  be  black,  or  an 
innocent  man  to  be  guilty,  I  should  discern  a  multitude  of 


124 

apparent  inconsistencies  in  him.  In  other  instances,  his 
charges  are  founded  on  his  own  misapprehension  of  their 
views,  which  I  have  attempted  to  sketch  in  the  general  out- 
line. I  may  hear  the  opinions  of  a  man  but  partially  re- 
ported, and  differing  with  him  entirely  in  my  own  views,  on 
the  general  subject,  while  I  attribute  my  opinions  also  to 
him,  his  own  may  appear  to  me,  nothing  but  a  bundle  of 
inconsistencies.  It  behooves  me,  in  such  a  case,  to  see 
well  to  it,  that  I  make  myself  fully  acquainted  with  his 
opinions,  and  not  attribute  mine  to  him,  before  I  attempt  to 
charge  him  with  inconsistency. 

In  other  instances  Prof  Stuart's  charges  grow  wholly  out 
of  his  utter  ignorance  of  the  writings  and  views  of  those 
whose  views  I  have  rapidly  sketched  in  the  general  outline. 
Had  he  read  them,  he  would  have  seen  his  objections  and 
charges  anticipated,  and  met,  as  they  encountered  those, 
who  have  done  precisely  what  he  has ;  and  therefore,  as  a 
candid  man  and  lover  of  truth,  he  would  never  have  revived 
and  repeated  charges  of  inconsistency,  which  had  been  an- 
swered to  the  perfect  satisfaction  of  many  who  made  them, 
and  so  as  to  revolutionize  and  secure  the  abandonment  of 
their  own  opinions  and  the  adoption  of  those  which  they 
had  ignorantly  condemned.  In  a  word,  Prof  S.  has  allowed 
himself  to  rear  his  castle  of  absurdities  on  the  mere  frame- 
work or  scaffolding  of  the  system  he  condemns.  His  con- 
duct in  this  particular,  is  precisely  of  a  piece  with  that  of 
the  man,  entirely  unacquainted  with  the  limner's  art,  w^ho, 
on  seeing  "  the  general  outline"  or  sketch  upon  the  can- 
vass, begins  to  criticise,  to  point  out  deformities,  and  to  mul- 
tiply his  charges  of  inconsistencies  and  incongruities,  as 
though  he  had  before  him  the  full  and  finished  picture, 
with  all  the  shades  and  colouring  and  blending  of  features 
yet  to  be  added. 

He  has  given  us  in  his  Hints,  a  sketch  of  his  own  views 
oh  some  points  of  prophetical  story.     Let  us  try  his  own 


"apparent  inconsistencies  and  incongruities."    125 

method  in  application  to  his  own  work,  and  see  what  appa- 
rent inconsistencies  and  incongruities  we  shall  find  there. 
(1.)  "  The  fourth  beast,  in  Dan.  vii.  7,  8,  11,  19—26,"  he 
says, "  as  all  must  concede  [?]  is  the  divided  Grecian  dominion, 
which  succeeded  the  reign  of  Alexander  the  Great."  All! — 
of  whom  does  he  speak? — all  critics,  all  expositors,  all 
readers  ?  If  so  he  is  very  wide  from  the  truth.  3Iultitudes  of 
writers  and  readers  have  not  conceded  it,  do  not  concede 
it ;  nor  have  they  ever  felt,  that  any  thing  now  or  heretofore 
said  in  favour  of  it,  induced  any  obligation  to  do  so,  but 
just  the  contrary. 

How  can  the  fourth  beast  be  the  divided  Grecian  do- 
minion? How  can  that  which  was  divided  into  ten  king- 
doms be  identical  with  the  empire  divided  intoybwr  ?  Where 
will  he  produce  a  parallel  passage  in  the  Scriptures  proving 
a  beast  to  be  the  symbol  of  a  dismembered  empire?  What 
propriety  is  there  in  making  the  symbol  of  one  beast  to  de- 
note an  empire  divided  into  four  kingdoms.  Prophecy  is 
far  more  explicit  than  all  this.  If  the  beast  denoted  the 
empire — what  did  the  seven  heads  denote  ?  and  what  the 
ten  horns  ?  How  was  the  fourth  beast  diverse  from  all  that 
went  before  it?  If  the  four  kingdoms,  that  ''  succeeded  the 
reign  of  Alexander  the  Great"  is  the  beast,  what  was  his 
dominion  1  How  does  Prof.  S.  harmonize  the  several  mem- 
bers of  this  complicated  symbol,  the  fourth  beast'?  What 
were  the  three  kingdoms  preceding  the  Grecian  ?  How, 
and  when  was  it  divided  into  ten  kingdoms,  and  where  is 
there  any  agreement  between  the  fourth  beast  and  the  Grecian 
dominion,  either  as  established  by  Alexander,  or  divided 
into  four  parts  at  his  death  by  his  generals?  (2.)  He  makes 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  to  be  the  little  horn  that  rose  up  after 
the  ten  kings,  as  Daniel  has  it.  Who,  what,  were  the  ten  kings 
before  him,  and  th&  three  plucked  up  by  the  roots  ?  How 
did  Antiochus  Epiphanes  prevail  against  the  saints  until 
the  Ancient  of  Days  came,  with  the  fiery  stream  issuing  from 

7* 


126 

before  him,  thousand  thousands  ministering  unto  him,  and 
ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand  standing  before  him,  and  the 
judgment  was  set  ?  When,  and  how  did  all  this  take  place, 
even  long  before  the  first  coming  of  Christ  1  Who  were  the 
saints?  How  did  they  take  possession  of  their  everlasting 
kingdom,  when  that  tyrant  was  destroyed  ? 

(3.)  He  says  Antiochus  Epiphanes  prevailed  until  a  time, 
times,  and  a  dividing  of  time,  or  1260  days.  Where  is  the 
exact  fulfilment  of  this  ?  How  can  Prof.  S.  reconcile  his 
own  statement  with  the  words  of  the  prophet  ?  How  can 
he  prove,  after  insisting  that  the  prophet  meant  literal  days 
in  number  1260,  that  "  it  was  not  his  design  to  he  exact  to  a 
day  ?"  and  if  so,  that  he  was  not  mistaken  1 

(4.)  Prof  S.  says  ''  Dan.  xii.  7  marks  the  terminus  ad  quern 
of  the  predictions  which  immediately  precede  it,  and  affirms 
that  the  dashing  in  pieces,  i.  e.  utterly  destroying  or  suppress- 
ing the  power  of  the  Jews,  is  to  be  referred  altogether  to 
Antiochus,  no  one  who  reads  Dan.  vii.  25  and  xi.  21 — 45, 
and  makes  comparison  of  them  with  the  annunication  here, 
can  well  doubt."  Hints,  p.  37.  Now  multitudes  do  doubt,  and 
have  doubted,  and,  for  reasons  shown,  do  well  to  doubt.  With 
what  spectacles  therefore  does  he  read  these  passages  so 
clearly,  as  to  give  him  the  liberty  thus  to  condemn  every  one 
who  doubts  and  differs  from  him,  as  mere  dolts  ?  In  what  dic- 
tionary of  synonymes  too  has  he  learned,  that  "  utterly  destroy- 
ed'' means  only  "  suppressed"  the  power  ?  When  and  how 
did  the  resurrection  spoken  of  in  Dan.  xii.  2,  3,  4,  which  was 
to  take  place  at  the  time  of  the  end,  when  "  all  these  things 
[that  is,  according  to  Prof.  S.,  the  things  spoken  of  before  to 
Daniel]  shall  be  finished'"?  Dan.  xii.  7.  What  manner  of 
agreement  is  there,  between  the  prophet's  predictions,  and 
Prof.  S.'s  comments  ?  Why  does  he  confessedly  contradict 
Daniel  as  to  time  some  thirty  days  ?  Why  has  he  not  told  us 
how  Daniel  stood  in  his  lot,  at  the  time  of  the  end,  as  the 
angel  promised  ?      Why  has  he  not  told  us  the  terminus  ad 


127 

quern  of  the  1290  days  more  exactly  ?  Does  he  suppose  that 
we  will  be  satisfied  with  Ms  saying  "  it  is  plainly  implied"? 
Why  has  he  not  placed  in  so  clear  a  light  "  the  correspond- 
ence of  prediction  and  history,"  which  he  says  "  is  so  striking 
— that  none  can  refuse  to  perceive  it"  ?  Whence  did  he  ob- 
tain authority  thus  to  settle  the  question,  to  suit  himself,  and  by 
sweeping  denunciation,  condemn  those  that  cannot  see  the 
visions  of  his  own  brain  ? 

(5.)  Professor  S.  has  completed  the  fulfilment  of  Daniel's 
predictions  long  before  Christ  came.  Of  course  he  must 
guard  against  appearing  to  be  guilty  of  '*  a  point  blank 
contradiction"  of  Christ,  who,  after  he  came,  admonished 
his  followers  that  even  after  his  departure  from  earth,  they 
should  "  see  the,  abomination  of  desolation,  spoken  of  by 
Daniel  the  prophet,  stand  in  the  holy  place,"  and  recom- 
mended them  which  should  be  in  '*  Judea,  to  flee  into  the 
mountains."  Matt.  xxiv.  15, 16.  But  in  order  to  do  so  who 
gave  him  the  right  to  introduce  a  principle  of  interpretation 
to  suit  himself?  which  he  has  done,  when  he  says,  that  these 
words  of  Daniel,  as  quoted  by  Christ,  "were  not  intended 
to  have  such  an  application  as  is  made  of  them  by  inter- 
preters," and  I  may  add,  was  made  of  them  by  Christ's  fol- 
lowers at  the  time,  *'  but  only  that  they  described  events  of 
altogether  a  similar  nature,"  and  that  '^  perhaps  even  more 
than  half  of  the  fulfilments  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, are  of  a  like  character.'!  Hints,  p.  102.  What  sort 
of  a  rule  of  interpretation  is  that  which  involves  a  perhaps  7 

(6.)  Professor  S.  makes  the  beast  in  Rev.  xiii.  with  seven 
heads  and  ten  horns,  to  symbolize  the  persecuting  power  of 
Rome,  especially  as  exercised  by  Nero.  Hints,  p.  115.  He 
also  tells  us  a  long  story  of  the  superstitious  impression 
produced  by  "  the  soothsayers,"  that  Nero  had  not  been 
killed,  or  would  re-appear  on  the  throne,  and  passes  this  off, 
no  doubt  by  the  aid  of  his  "jpcrAops,"  as  the  fulfilment  of 
John's  prediction,  that  one  of  the  heads  of  the  beast  should 


128  ppoF. 

be  ''  wounded  to  death,"  but  revive  again,  and  "  all  the 
world  wonder  after  the  heast."  He  has  not  told  us  on  what 
authority  he  has  assumed  that  John  wrote  the  Apocalypse 
during  Nero's  reign,  as  he  evidently  implies,  when  he  says 
that  instead  of  calling  the  beast  Nero  by  name,  "  which 
would  have  been,  in  connection  with  what  he  said,  a  treason- 
able offence/'  he  has  ^^ purposely  adverted  to  him  m  such  a 
way,  that  his  readers  might  easily  know  who  he  meant." 
Hints,  pp.  117,  118.  He  did  it  "  secretly  to  intimate  to  his 
readers,  who  was  meant  by  the  beast,"  by  repeating  those 
things  which  ^^ popular  rumour  had  spread  abroad  respecting 
him."  p.  120.  How  does  this  agree  witli  the  high  and 
independent  character  of  John  as  a  prophet,  and  with  the 
fact  of  his  inspiration  1  How  does  it  agree  with  the  internal 
evidence  in  the  book  itself,  that  it  was  not  written  either 
during  Claudius'  or  Nero's  reign  ?  "  He  has  not  told  us" 
how  he  sets  aside  the  arguments  of  Woodhouse  and  others, 
showing  the  date  of  the  writing  of  the  Apocalypse  to  have 
been  under  Domitian,  years  after  these  and  other  things, 
such  as  the  slaying  of  the  witnesses,  &c.,  which,  according 
to  his  interpretation,  John  wrote  as  prophecy,  had  become 
matter  of  history  ?  He  has  not  told  us  how  it  lies  on  its 
very  face,  that  the  Apocalypse  was  written  for  Christians 
only,  in  the  midst  of  a  bitter  and  bloody  persecution ;  nor 
how  he  even  attempts  to  answer  Dr.  Cressener's  demonstra- 
tion, in  fourteen  particulars,  that  the  fourth  beast  of  Daniel 
is  the  same  with  the  beast  described  by  John ! 

I  might  swell  this  list,  but  having  done  enough  in  this 
''  repulsive  task,"  adopt  his  own  language,  which  he  most  in- 
consistently and  unjustly  applies  to  me,  and  in  which,  not- 
withstanding he  has  taken  special  pains,  once  and  again,  to 
inform  the  reader  that  I  have  presented  "  nothing  new,"  he 
nevertheless,  now  that  it  suits  his  purpose  for  ridicule,  can, 
like  all  who  love  to  create  a  laugh,  contradict  himself  by 
giving  me  credit  for  novelties  not  rarely  surpassed  since  the 


"apparent  inconsistencies  and  incongruities."    129 

days  of  Jacob  Bcehman  or  Immanuel  Swedenborg.  I  do 
it  not  to  revile  in  turn,  nor  to  retaliate,  but  merely  to  show 
how  easy  it  would  be  to  apply  his  own  ribaldry  to  himself: 
"  The  one  half  is  not  yet  told,  but  enough.  Such  a  tissue 
of  incongruities  and  inconsistencies,  has  rarely  made  ils  ap- 
pearance before  the  world  at  any  period  since  the  days  of 
Jacob  Boehman  and  Immanuel  Swedenborg.  How  it  is 
possible,  for  any  sober  and  'educated  man,  in.possession  of 
his  reason,  seriously  to  believe  and  earnestly  to  defend  such 
things  as  these,  I  confess  myself  unable  to  see."  I  have 
made  out  by  his  machinery  as  fair  a  case  as  he  has.  But  I 
am  not  concerned  to  review  his  Hints.  They  need  but 
little.  The  simplest  and  most  uneducated  can  do  that  with 
great  ease  for  themselves.  For  further  particulars,  however, 
I  refer  Professor  S.,  or  any  one  who  is  curious  in  such  mat- 
ters, to  certain  numbers  published  very  near  him,  in  a  work 
he  perhaps  affects  to  despise  for  various  reasons,  viz.,  the 
Signs  of  the  Times,  which  appeared  during  October  and 
November  last.  Let  him  also  read  Mr.  Miller's  letters  in 
the  same  work  reviewing  his  Hints.  He  may  think  and  talk 
as  he  pleases  about  the  Signs  of  the  Times,  and  Mr.  Miller 
and  his  followers,  and  call  their  opinions  ignorant,  uneducated, 
fanatical  hariolations,  and  what  not.  I  am  not  their  apologist, 
having  less  alliance  with  them  in  my  mode  of  interpretation 
than  he  ;  but  one  thing  is  certain,  they  deserve,  as  men  and 
Christians,  other  treatment ;  and  there  are  objections  and 
reasonings,  sober,  solemn,  urgent  argument  in  that  review 
and  those  letters,  which  Prof.  S.  is  not  going  to  meet  and 
put  down  by  laughter  and  contempt,  as  he  has  attempted 
with  me.  Professorial  critics  may  aspire  to  the  reputation 
of  superior  learning,  open  schools  for  their  laudations  of 
German  professors  and  lofty  literati,  and  titled  digni- 
taries, and  pour  contempt  on  ignorant  hariolators,  but 
like  Horace,  who  disdained  such  hotbeds  of  conceit,  I 
care  not  to  approach  them,  either  to  hear  their  effusions,  or 


130  PROF.  Stuart's  charge  of 

bespeak  exemption  from  their  attacks,  even  though  I  should 
be  charged,  as  he  was,  with  the  very  thing  which  more 
especially  pertains  to  all  impudent  pretenders  to  literary 
merit. 

Grammaticas  ambire  tribus  et  pulpita  dignor 

Hinc  iilas  lacryraae  !     Spissis  indigaa  Iheatris 

Scripta  pudet  recitare,  et  nugis  addere  pondus, 

Sidixi.     Rides,  ait,  et  Jovis  auribus  ista 

Servas;  fidis  enim  manare  poetica  mella 

Te  solum,  libi  pulcher.     Ad  iiaec  ego  naribus  uti 

Formido. 

The  tribe  of  grammar  pedants  I  despise, 

And  hence  these  tears  of  spleen  and  anger  rise. 

I  blush  in  grand  assemblies  to  repeat 

My  worthless  works,  and  give  such  trifles  weight ; 

Yet  these  professions  they  with  wonder  hear— 

"  No,  you  reserved  them  for  dread  Caesar's  ear; 

With  your  own  beauties  charmed,  you  surely  know 

Your  verses  with  a  honeyed  sweetness  flow ;" 

Nor  dare  I  rally  with  such  dangerous  folk. 

After  this  general  notice  of  Prof  S.'s  charge  of  incon- 
sistencies, and  the  admirable  contrivances  by  which  he 
attempts  to  establish  it,  a  mere  cursory  notice  of  his  speci- 
fications, is  all  that  I  feel  to  be  necessary. 

No.  1,  grows  out  of  his  own  mistaken  apprehension, 
that  I  believe  and  represent  the  Millenarians  to  believe,  that 
the  complete  restoration  of  the  Jews  is  "  the  first  act  in  the 
great  drama."  I  have  done  no  such  thing.  A  partial  resto- 
ration may  take  place  ;  other  events  occur;  and  after  all 
this,  the  elect  remnant  be  gathered.  There  is  just  as  great 
a  difference  between  his  statement  and  mine,  as  there  is 
between  complete  and  partial.  One  instance  of  false  as- 
sumption. 

No.  2,  grows  out  of  his  confounding  two  things,  entirely 
different,  and  distant  by  at  least  1000  years,  viz.,  Ezekiel's 
war  of  Gog  and  Magog,  and  John's  battle  of  Armageddon, 
with  John's  war  of  Gog  and  Magog.     He  identifies  them.  I 


131 

deny  that  they  are  the  same,  and  so  have  made  the  state- 
ment.    Let  him  prove  his  assertion. 

No.  3,  is  a  specimen  of  w^orse  than  puerile  captiousness. 
Suppose  I  admit,  what  I  say  some  have  conjectured,  that 
the  Gog  and  Magog  of  John,  are  all  the  wicked  dead  raised 
up  at  the  final  judgment,  led  on  by  Satan  and  his  hosts,  let 
loose,  in  a  last  desperate  and  violent  attack  against  the 
camp  of  the  saints,  and  represented  by  John  as  coming 
"  from  the  four  corners  of  the  earthy'' — what  then?  Prof. 
S.  interpolates  the  passage  by  his  own  paraphrase,  viz., 
^' the  utmost  extremities, '\  and  then  asks,  "Are  there  no 
wicked  men,  then,  who  are  buried  elsewhere  than  in  these 
extremities,  and  who  must  be  raised  up  at  the  end  of  the 
world  ?"  Who  said  the  contrary  1  And  if  the  camp  of 
the  saints  be  the  abode  of  Christ  and  his  raised  saints,  the 
place  of  his  throne,  and  the  seat  of  his  supernal  dominion, 
a  general  conspiracy  of  the  wicked  of  earth,  rising  on  all 
sides,  could  not  have  been  more  graphically  described — from 
every  corner  of  the  earth  they  come — I  have  as  good  a  right 
as  he  has  to  interpolate  my  meaning,  which  I  think  better 
and  more  accordant  with  scriptural  usage,  and  say  from  the 
four  corners  of  tlie  earth,  means  from  the  four  quarters,  as 
in  our  translation,  N.  S.  E.  W.,  i.  e.,  every  direction.  This 
is  the  merest  trifling. 

No.  4  is  a  specimen  of  misrepresentation  and  of  the  con- 
fusion of  his  own  thoughts.  I  have  not  said  that  Christ  and 
his  saints  will  dwell  permanently  in  the  air ;  however,  in  sta- 
ting Millenarians'  views,  and  referring  particularly  to  those 
of  Mr.  Cunninghame,  I  have  said,  that  for  a  season  Christ  and 
his  saints  will  be  together  in  the  air.  If  Prof.  S.  denies  it 
he  is  guilty  of  "  a  point  blank  contradiction"  of  Paul,  1 
Thess.  iv.  17.  Will  Prof.  S.  say  how  long  they  shall  remain 
with  Christ  in  the  air ;  one  hour,  a  day,  a  month,  or  a  year,  or 
forty  years  1  I  have  not  said  it ; — nor  that  Millenarians  say 
how  long.     They  can  be  with  Christ  in  the  air  for  a  season, 


132  PROF.  Stuart's  charge  of 

where  the  quickened  saints  meet  him,  and  there  after*  attend- 
ing his  presence  and  movements,  be  ever  with  him,  as  the 
child  that  always  dwells  with  its  parent,  however  he  may  re- 
move the  locality  of  his  dwelling.  And  as  to  Prof  S.'s  crit- 
icism on  the  words  iv  loig  inavqavioig,  to  mean  the  aerial  re- 
gions, I  admit  it,  remarking,  that  as  this  is  the  residence 
of  Satan  before  the  Millennium,  as  Prof.  S.  admits,  so  noth- 
ing can  be  more  appropriate  than  that  Christ  and  his  saints 
should  enter  and  occupy  it,  when  they  come,  according  to 
prophecy,  to  establish  the  dominion  of  Heaven  on  the  ruins 
of  Satan's  kingdom.  Will  Prof  S.  read  his  New  Testa- 
ment a  little  more  attentively  before  he  adventures  again 
sneeringly  to  say  that  "  the  air  is  a  new  abode  of  Christ  and 
the  saints,"  meaning  one  of  my  novelties? 

No.  5  grows  out  of  certain  assumptions  of  his  own  about 
the  impossibility  of  glorified  bodies  dwelling  on  this  earth. 
I  have  no  concern  with  the  rash  impertinent  questions  he 
asks,  but  refer  him  to  his  Master  for  his  answer. 

No.  6  is  a  complaint  of  difficulty  of  apprehension  grow- 
ing out  of  his  neglecting  to  distinguish  between  apostate 
Christian  nations,  and  nations  simply  wicked  and  persecu- 
ting. Millenarians  use  the  word  antichristian,  in  a  spe- 
cific, emphatic  sense,  when  speaking  of  the  final  apostasy, 
and  destruction  of  the  nations  guilty  of  it,  and  also  in  a 
generic  sense,  comprehending  also  idolatrous  nations.  Prof, 
S^.  makes  no  such  distinction,  and  charges  their  views  with 
the  confusion  of  his  own  thoughts. 

No.  7.  In  reply  to  the  questions  propounded  here,  I  refer 
him  to  his  Geography  and  History,  to  know  what  part,  and 
how  much  of  the  earth  were  included  in  the  Roman  em- 
pire. 

Nos.  8  and  9  are  impertinent  questions,  growing  out  of 
his  own  gratuitous  assumptions.  Yet  I  may  answer,  that  the 
language  of  the  prophet,  according  to  the  usage  of  Scripture, 
will  be  fully  and  exactly  fulfilled  if  delegates  from  the  na- 


"apparent  inconsistencies  and  incongruities."    133 

tions,  and  voluntary  visitors,  frequent  Jerusalem  as  the  capi- 
tal of  the  nations  in  the  flesh,  the  centre  and  seat  of  her 
Theocracy,  especially  on  the  great  public  occasions  referred 
to  by  Isaiah — Jerusalem  never  wanting,  on  those  occa- 
sions, the  presence  of  more  or  less  worshippers,  from  different 
parts  of  the  earth.  But  Isaiah  does  not  say,  chap.  Ixvi.,  that 
"  all  flesh,  from  month  to  month  and  Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  shall 
come  to  worship  before  God"  at  Jerusalem.  Zechariah  says 
that  such  a  visitation  and  presentation  before  the  Lord  at 
Jerusalem,  shall  take  place  annualhj,  under  certain  penal- 
ties for  neglect,  chap.  xiv.  16,  &c.  Isaiah  refers  not  to  the 
same  thing,  but  to  another  feature  in  the  wonderful  arrange- 
ments of  that  period. 

If  Prof  S.  wants  any  clew  about  the  time,  to  convert  the 
nations  left  in  the  flesh,  and  will  search  for  it,  he  will  find  it 
in  the  prophetical  scriptures.  It  was  not  my  object,  nor  did 
the  argument  require  me  to  give  the  clew ; — only  to  bespeak 
attention  to  the  whole  subject,  and  induce  inquiry  and  study. 
And  as  to  any  reason  why  the  saints  should  remain  on  the 
earth,  after  the  conversion  of  the  nations,  alleging  as  he  does 
their  work  is  done,  he  has  his  answer  already,  that  it  is  but 
just  begun.  If  he  does  not  relish  a  terrene  residence  for 
them,  he  and  his  Master  must  settle  that  matter,  not  I. 

No.  10,  I  return  and  press  upon  himself.  "  If  all 
Christians,"  as  he  says  the  Bible  tells  us,  "  are  to  be  made 
kings  and  priests  unto  God,  who  are  to  be  the  subjects?" 
He  must  answer  it,  nor  will  he  be  allowed  to  dodge  it.  It 
is  part  and  parcel  of  his  own  scheme,  and  he  must  show  its 
consistency  with  that  scheme.  "  When  all  are  kings,  who 
are  to  be  ruled  ?"  Millenarians  have  nothing  to  do  with  this 
question.  It  finds  no  place  in  their  views.  The  poor  perse- 
cuted, afflicted,  despised,  trodden  down,  and  martyred  saints, 
and  faithful  witnesses  of  Christ  that  have  died  before,  and 
shall  be  on  the  earth  at  His  coming,  they  are  to  be  the 
kings  and  priests.     The  nations  in  the  flesh,  during  the 


134^ 

whole  Millennial  period,  form  the  subjects.  Prof.  S.  has  a 
hard  task  to  perform,  if  he  undertakes  to  prove  from  the  Bible 
that  all  who  are,  or  ever  shall  be,  on  this  earth,  subject  to 
Jesus  Christ,  stiall  be  His  kings  and  priests.  This  is  another 
of  his  assumptions.  They  are  the  redeemed  up  to  a  given 
date — the  date  of  Christ's  coming,  that  are  to  reign.  If 
Prof  S,  dates  that  coming  after  the  Millennium,  at  the  last 
epoch  of  judgment,  the  final  consummation  of  all  things,  he 
will  have  more  need  of  theological  looseness  and  generaliza- 
tion, or  poetic  flights  and  descriptions,  to  help  him  make 
the  language  of  the  Bible  at  all  intelligible  on  this  subject, 
than  he  has  yet  had,  in  his  interpretation  of  prophecy. 

No.  (11)  I  have  already  answered.  Christ  may  judge, 
for  any  thing  we  dare  say,  that  sacrificial  commemorative 
offerings  not  expiatory  may  be  better  adapted  to  human 
nature^mankind  in  the  flesh — as  means  of  summary  impor- 
tant symbolic  instruction,  than  any  other.  Certain  it  is,  the 
world  has  hankered  after  such  strong  representations,  and 
God  from  the  beginning  saw  they  were  needed,  and  that  it 
was  best  to  give  them.  But  I  am  not  concerned  to  answer 
such  questions,  though  I  could  say  much  from  Ezekiel, 
about  the  use  of  the  offerings  to  be  made  at  Jerusalem.  The 
question  is,  What  hath  the  spirit  of  Christ  taught  ? 

No.  (12)  is  a  tissue  of  misapprehension,  and  misrepre- 
sentation. As  long  as  nations  in  the  flesh  have  different 
localities,  there  will  be  different  peculiarities.  The  union 
between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  consists  not  in  the  destruction 
of  these  things ;  but  will  be  perfected  in  the  very  state  of 
things  predicted  to  occur  at  Christ's  coming.  If  Paul  did 
not  '^separate"  he  certainly  distinguished ,  between  Jews 
and  Gentile  Christians  and  churches.  Nor  has  Christianity 
destroyed  the  distinction.  While  the  Jews,  according  to 
God's  covenant  and  oath,  are  never  to  cease  from  being  a 
nation,  will  Prof  S.  show  how  the  distinction  is  ever  to  be 
abolished?     The    Millennial    dispensation  will  unite,   and 


135 

blend  in  perfect  harmony,  under  One  Theocracy,  all  the. 
nations  and  families  of  earth ;  but  it  will  not  destroy  national 
and  domestic  distinctions.  Prof  S.  assumes  this  singular 
and  ridiculous  position,  that  there  can  be  no  union  of  parts 
and  parties  without  the  destruction  of  identity  or  peculiar 
characteristics,  personal,  social,  national. 

No.   (13)  I  have  already  answered  under  8  and  9. 

No.  (14)  I  have  also  answered  under  No  4.  I  add,  that 
it  is  another  specimen  of  misrepresentation.  Mr.  D.  no- 
where says  "  that  the  saints  all  descend  and  live  in  the  new 
earthly  Jerusalem,"  as  Prof  S.  says  he  does.  I  distinguish 
between  Jerusalem  with  its  temple  rebuilt  by  man,  the  seat 
and  centre  of  the  Theocracy  among  the  nations  in  the  flesh, 
and  the  heavenly  Jerusalem, — which  comes  down  out  of 
heaven, — the  city  which  hath  foundations,  whose  maker  and 
builder  is  God, — the  object  of  hope  and  expectation  by  all 
the  saints  that  died  in  faith,  an  interest  in  which  is  the  in- 
heritance of  each,  and  where  they  shall  dwell  with  Christ, 
needing  no  light  of  the  sun,  or  of  the  moon,  and  having  no 
temple ;  for  the  Lord  God  Almighty,  even  the  Lamb,  is  the 
light  thereof,  in  the  light  of  which  the  nations  of  them  that 
are  saved  walk,  and  into  which  the  kings  of  the  earth,  the 
raised  saints,  do  bring  their  glory  and  honour. 

No.  (15)  is  mere  trifling.  As  to  the  dimensions  and  de- 
scription of  this  heavenly  city,  I  might  refer  Prof  S.  to  the 
learned  Lord  King,  though  not  adopting  his  views  in  his 
Morsels  of  Criticism,  for  some  suggestions  to  stop  his  laughter, 
which  perhaps  he  would  respect  from  him  more  than  any 
thing  from  me.  But  I  answer,  the  whole  dispensation  is 
miraculous ;  and  as  no  description  can  give  us  accurate 
ideas  of  the  thing,  till  we  see  it,  when  the  description  be- 
comes perfectly  plain,  and  obvious,  so  it  concerns  me  not 
to  meet  what  he  has  said,  about  the  height  of  houses,  streets, 
uppermost  apartments,  dwellings  accommodated  to  the 
spiritual  bodies  of  the  saints,  and  all  such  puerile  nonsense. 


J  36 

It  is  enough  for  me  to  say,  in  exact  accordance  with  my 
principles  of  interpretation,  that  the  vision  of  John,  when 
he  saw  the  New  Jerusalem  descending  out  of  heaven,  &:-c., 
is  a  symbolical  description  of  some  real  abode  of  the  saints 
with  Christ,,  the  nearest  approximation  to  which  we  can 
make  in  our  thoughts,  is  of  a  city,  built  of  the  most  splendid 
and  gorgeous  materials  known  in  the  whole  physical  uni- 
verse. If  Prof  S.  will  not  dare  to  deny  that  Jehovah  the 
Angel  of  the  Covenant,  our  divine  Redeemer,  was  on  Sinai 
with  his  twenty  thousand  angels.  Psalm  Ixviii.  17,  and  Moses 
and  Elias  in  splendour  above  the  sun  were  with  Christ  upon 
the  mount  of  transfiguration,  he  should  be  cautious  how  he 
allows  himself  to  sport  with  the  sublime  descriptions  given 
by  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  that  he  may  make  his  reader  laugh 
either  at  my  folly  or  my  faith. 

Nos.  (16)  (17)  contain  questions  which  require  no 
other  answer  than  what  I  have  given  to  No.  5. 

No.  (18)  is  founded  on  his  own  misapprehension  of  the 
statement,  according  to  which,  if  the  Millenarian  view  I 
quoted,  but  said  nothing  about  my  own  opinion,  be  cor- 
rect or  deserving  of  attention,  it  will  be  a  conflict  between 
spiritual  principalities  and  powers,  an  assault  of  hell  against 
the  saints.  Here  I  remark,  there  are  differing  views  among 
Millenarian  writers,  but  it  is  felt  to  be  a  solemn  theme,  de- 
serving of  grave  and  reverent  attention,  widely  different 
from  the  flippant  efforts  of  Prof  S.  to  excite  mirth. 

No.  (19.)  Here  Prof  S.  assumes  that  the  Gog  and  Ma- 
gog of  John  and  Ezekiel  are  the  same.  He  nmst  first  prove 
it.  Having  assumed  their  identity,  and  that  therefore  they 
precede  the  Millennium,  he  charges  me  with  teaching  that 
they  both  follow  the  Millennium.  I  have  denied  their  iden- 
tity, and  have  not  taught  as  the  opinions  of  Millenarians, 
what  he  attributes  to  me.  I  can  only  preserve  my  charity 
for  him  here,  by  attributing  to  him  entire  ignorance  of  the 
views  he  undertook  to  criticise. 


137 

No.  (20)  contains  the  same  sort  of  egregious  trifling 
which  any  and  every  man  must  be  guilty  of,  who  allows 
himself  to  ask  questions,  and  criticise,  and  captiously  urge 
objections  against  that  of  which  he  is,  and  in  the  nature  of 
things  must  be,  profoundly  ignorant.  It  contains  moreover 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  specimens  of  the  non  sequitur 
I  have  ever  met  with — given  too  as  clear,  cogent/convincing « 
exposition  !  establishing  a  fundamental  position,  or  putting  a 
key  into  his  hands,  to  unlock  the  mysteries  of  the  prophets ! ! 
I  give  it  in  his  own  remarkable  words.  "  Paul  assumes 
*  that  flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,' 
(1  Cor.  XV.  50,)  for  the  evident  reason  that  that  kingdom  is 
not  material."  And  this  Prof.  S.  gives  as  an  argument  to 
prove  that  there  is  to  be  no  materiality  about  the  future  and 
final  world  of  the  blessed  !  !  !  Let  him  first  prove  that  Heav- 
en is  absolutely,  totally  disconnected  from  the  material  Uni- 
verse, before  he  attempts  to  pervert  Paul's  language  in  this 
style.  Let  him  say  what  Paul  means  by  the  phrase Jlesh  and 
blood,  1  Cor.  xv.  50.  He  certainly  means  no  more  than  hu- 
man nature,  in  its  present  corrupt  and  mortal  state.  It  must 
pass  through  the  alembic  of  the  grave.  It  must  sustain  the 
transforming  process  of  the  resurrection,  before  it  can  inher- 
it the  kingdom.  Does  this  prove,  that  in  the  resurrection 
state,  that  is,  as  Paul  means,  in  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  there 
is  to  be  an  utter  destitution  of  every  particle  of  materiality  ? 
Let  Prof  S.  try  to  prove  it.  Paul  does  not  assign  as  the 
reason  why  flesh  and  blood,  i.  e.  man  in  his  present  corrupt 
and  mortal  state,  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  that 
that  kingdom  is  not  material.  Paul  nowhere  said  it ; — no- 
where assumes  it ; — and  Prof  S.  shall  not  "  foist"  in  any 
transcendental  notions  of  the  heavenly  state,  first  to  explain 
Paul,  and  then  turn  round  and  claim  to  have  a  key,  where- 
with to  unlock  the  mysteries  of  the  prophets,  and  make  short 
work  of  the  whole  business  of  interpretation,  by  telling  us 
it  all  belongs  to  "  the  world^of  mind."   If  the  spiritual  body, 


1JJ8  PROF.  Stuart's  charge  of 

on  which  he  lays  such  great  stress,  is  utterly  devoid  of  ma- 
teriality, then  is  it  nonsense  to  talk  of  a  resurrection  of  the 
body  as  any  thing  that  literally  is  to  take  place.  It  is  all 
spirit,  or  poetry,  or  what  not,  no  materiality  about  it  at  all, 
according  to  Prof  S.  !  !  I  challenge  him  to  show  how,  in 
what  imaginable  way,  there  is  a  resurrection  of  the  body, 
if  the  spirituality  of  the  saints  means  utter,  absolute  immate- 
riality ;  and  how  he  can  escape  the  condemnation,  which 
Paul  has  pronounced  on  Hymeneus  and  Philetus,  who,  so 
far  as  I  understand  language,  were  guilty  of  this  very  thing, 
and  allegorized,  spiritualized,  in  their  vain  babblings,  so  as  to 
give  him  occasion  to  say  to  Timothy,  "  if  we  be  dead  with 
Christ  we  shall  also  live  with  Him  ;  if  we  suffer,  we  shall  also 
reign  with  Him  ;"  and  that  however  extraordinary  and  im- 
probable this  may  seem,  so  that  even  '*  if  we  believe  not, 
yet  he  abideth  faithful :  he  cannot  deny  himself"  2  Tim. 
ii.  11-^-18.  Verily,  if  Prof  S.'s  views  of  the  nature  of  the 
spiritual  body  be  correct,  that  it  is  utterly,  absolutely  imma- 
terial, I  see  not  but  that  along  with  those  men  he  has  erred 
concerning  the  truth ;  virtually,  to  all  intents  and  purposes, 
saying,  "  that  the  resurrection  is  past  already,"  for  the  dead 
saints  are  now,  for  aught  we  know  to  the  contrary,  wholly 
spiritual,  totally  disconnected  from  all  materiality  ;  and  what 
sort  of  a  resurrection  can  it  be,  that  adds  no  materiality  to 
them?  I  charge  not  Prof  S.  with  this  heresy,  but  I  see  not 
how  it  is  possible  to  prevent  his  principles  of  interpretation 
and  notions  on  this  subject,  if  fairly  and  legitimately  carried 
out,  from  leading  there.  It  will  not  do  to  tell  me,  of  its  be- 
ing etherealized,  and  attenuated.  I  care  not  to  what  degree 
he  does  this,  it  is  still  associated  with  matter. — If  some  or- 
ganic power  of  luminous  emanation,  or  modified  electric 
galvanic  ethereal  subtilty,  be  the  element  of  the  raised  spirit- 
ual body,  it  is  still  associated  with  matter,  and  capable  of 
a  terrene  dwelling.  I  say  not  what  it  is ;  the  day  will  declare 
it.     He  may  extricate  himself  the  best  way  he  can  from  this 


"apparent  inconsistencies  and  incongruities."    139 

difficulty,  but  I  see  no  way  possible  for  him  to  do  it,  while 
he  denies  all  materiality  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  by 
consequence  to  the  raised  saints.  If  he  uses  the  word  mate- 
rial^ in  some  gross  sense,  and  does  not  mean  to  deny  all 
materiality  of  being  to  the  raised  saints,  then  he  had  better 
learn  to  write  with  more  precision,  and  to  beware  how  he 
thinks  that  other  people  will  understand  him  just  as  loosely 
as  he  expresses  himself 

No.  (21.)  I  might  here  say,  that  my  remarks,  under  the 
last  head,  are  also  an  answer  to  this  :  but  there  are  one  or 
two  additional  specimens  of  gratuitous  and  false  assump- 
tions, non  sequiturs,  and  other  things,  deserving  attention. 
Prof  S.  says,  that  it  *'  looks  very  suspicious,"  that  I  have 
not  urged  ''  1  Cor.  xv.  in  favour  of"  (my)  "  scheme."  My 
object  was  not  to  treat  of  the  resurrection.  It  only  comes 
in,  incidentally,  as  connected  with  the  main  argument. 
Had  I  treated  specifically  of  the  first  resurrection,  it  would 
have  been  appropriate.  I  have  done  it  when  publicly  lec- 
turing on  this  subject.  What  suspicions  Prof  S.  has  con- 
jured up,  I  know  not :  but  I  know,  that  Prof  S.  has  said 
1  Cor.  XV.  contains  **  an  account  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
saints  only."  App.  p.  181.  And  yet,  in  almost  the  very 
next  breath,  he  turns  round  and  says,  *'  Paul  here  asserts, 
that  it  (he  means,  apparently  at  least,  the  resurrection  of  the 
wicked,  but  if  he  means  the  resurrection  of  the  saints  only, 
then  he  lakes  for  granted  what  he  must  prove)  takes  place 
at  that  period,"  i.  e.,  what  he  calls  the  end  of  the  world,  the 
very  same  period  at  which  he  says  occurs  the  resurrection 
of  the  saints;  that  is,  both,  according  to  Prof  S.,  occur 
together.  How  does  Paul  assert  this,  when,  according  to 
Prof  S.'s  own  admission,  he  is  speaking  of  the  saints,  re- 
surrection, and  "  of  THEIR  resurrection  only  ? "  It  can 
only  be  implied,  just  as  Prof  S.  assumes,  that  both  resurrec- 
tions occur  together. 

He  professes  ^'  truly  [to]  regret  to  be  obliged  to  give 


140  PROF.  Stuart's  charge  of 

any  account  of  [my  silence  in]  this  matter,  since  [he]  must 
seem  to  accuse  Mr.  D.  of  want  of  candour  and  fairness." 
Strange  tenderness  all  of  a  sudden,  when  he  had  done  the 
thing  over  and  over  again  in  reality,  without  any  apology  or 
squeamishness.  Perhaps  there  may  have  been  other  reasons 
for  his  regrets.  I  shall  not  undertake  to  pry  into  them  : 
but  ask  him,  where,  in  all  the  xvth  chap,  of  1  Cor.,  he  finds 
that  Paul  asserts  any  thing  about  the  resurrection  of  the 
wicked,  as  he  says  he  does?  And  how  he.  Prof  S.,  recon- 
ciles his  own  statements  here  ?  I  agree  with  him,  that  Paul 
speaks  of  the  resurrection  of  the  saints,  and  of  "  thei?-  re- 
surrection only."  Now  it  will  not  do  for  Prof  S.  to  say, 
that  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked  is  implied,  for  he  says 
Paul  "  asserts"  it — two  very  different  things,  which  others 
can  distinguish,  if  not  he. 

But  Prof  S.  has  settled  it  in  his  own  mind  as  things  not 
to  be  disputed,  which  things  also  he  attributes  to  Paul  as 
equally  assumed  by  him,  that  the  world  is  to  have  an  end, 
that  all  connection  with  the  material  universe  on  the  part 
of  saints  is  to  cease  then — and  that  at  this  end  of  the  world, 
both  saints  and  sinners  all  rise  together.  Observe  how 
adroitly  he  uses  his  key  to  unlock  these  mysteries.  ''  Paul 
says  that  '  flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
God.'  Of  course  Paul  supposes  [?]  that  kingdom  in  which 
the  saints  will  live  after  the  resurrection,  to  be  of  a  nature 
wliicli  is  incompatible  with  the  residence  of  material  bodies." 
App.  p.  181.  Paul  neither  supposes,  nor  assumes,  any  such 
thing ;  nor  can  his  language  be  made  to  imply  it.  The 
things,  which  Prof.  S.  says  of  course  Paul  supposes,  (he 
means  implies,)  are  all  of  them  non  sequiturs.  Not  one  of 
them  flows  legitimately  from  any  thing  Paul  has  said  in  this 
chapter.  Yet  on  these  false  assumptions,  or  non  sequiturs, 
call  them  what  you  may,  he  has  modestly  regretted  to  be 
obliged  to  seem  to  charge  me  with  a  want  of  fairness  and 
candour,  because  forsooth,  I  have  not  attempted  to  prove  my 


"apparent  inconsistencies  and  incongruities."    141 

views  from  this  chapter ! ! !  Marvellous,  marvellous  for- 
bearance- and  tenderness ! 

....  But  I  have  not  done  with  this  cluster  of  non  sequiturs. 
Where,  I  ask,  does  Paul  speak  in  chap.  15,  of  1  Cor.  of 
the  end  of  the  world  1  In  the  24th  verse  Prof.  S.  says.  Let 
us  see  what  Paul  says  :  "  Then  cometh  the  cnd^'' — what  end? 
Prof  S.  says  of  the  world.  I  answer,  non  sequitur.  Paul 
says  no  such  thing,  nor  does  it  follow  by  fair  inference.  But 
what  does  Prof  S.  mean  by  the  end  of  the  world  ?  His  lan- 
guage, argument,  accusation  against  me,  and  the  whole 
drift  of  his  remarks,  especially  his  assertion  about  the  king- 
dom of  Heaven  being  not  material — entirely  disconnected 
from  the  material  universe — show  that  he  means  the  annihi- 
lation of  this  globe.  If  he  does,  I  challenge  him  to  the  proof, 
from  the  Bible,  that  ever,  to  all  eternity,  such  an  event 
shall  occur,  whatever  may  be  its  conflagrations  or  transfor- 
mations ?  The  word  "  end,"  to  jsXog,  may  mean,  either 
the  consummation,  or  the  termination,  in  this  connection 
the  completion,  either  of  the  present  state  of  things,  or  of 
the  things  consequent  on  Christ's  coming  to  establish  His 
kingdom — the  kingdom  of  Heaven.  The  connection  proves 
it  to  be  the  latter.  This  consummation,  Paul  says,  shall 
take  place  when  Christ  sball  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God, 
even  the  Father.  The  date  of  this  consummation,  he  says, 
shall  occur  when  He,  Jesus  Christ,  shjdl  have  put  down  all 
rule,  and  all  authority,  and  power,  having  reigned  till  he 
hath  put  all  his  enemies  under  his  [avtov,  his  own)  feet. 
For  it  is  too  plain,  to  admit  of  any  question,  that  there  can 
be  no  delivering  up  a  kingdom  by  Christ  to  the  Father,  in  the 
sense  in  which  Paul  means,  until  it  is  completely,  thoroughly 
established  in  his  own  possession — all  enemies  subdued  and 
put  for  ever  to  rest.  But,  at  what  stage,  in  the  develop- 
ments of  the  scheme  of  redemption,  ist  his  termination,  or 
consummation,  to  occur  ?      Then,  says  Paul,  when  His  ene- 


U2 

mies  being  subdued,  He  shall  have  delivered  up  the  king- 
dom to  the  Father,  and  God  be  all  in  all. 

Paul's  account  of  the  matter,  wonderfully  corroborates 
the  views  I  have  stated.  He  gives  the  order  of  the  resur- 
rection exactly.  First,  Christ  "  the  first  fruits"  and  pledge  ; 
second,  they  that  are  Christ's,  his  saints,  at  his  coming — not 
a  word  about  the  wicked.  Then,  when  certain  other  things 
occur,  the  consummation  takes  place.  Paul  does  not  say 
that  the  then  is  at  Christ's  coming ;  but  tvhen  He  shall  have 
subdued  his  enemies,  and  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  the 
Father.  At  his  coming,  Christ  and  his  saints,  according  to 
Daniel,  enter  into  the  possession  of  the  kingdom.  Tlie 
work  begins  with  retribution,  even  the  slaughter  of  apostate 
nations,  the  expulsion  of  Satan,  and  an  entire  new,  heavenly 
and  miraculous  organization  of  affairs  in  this  world, — the 
kingdom  of  Christ, — the  kingdom  of  heaven.  John  says, 
that  this  kingdom  of  Heaven,  this  reign  of  Christ  with  the 
saints  that  rise  at  his  coming,  will  last  for  one  thousand 
years.  The  prophets  describe  it,  as  glorious  beyond  con- 
ception. The  beast  and  the  false  prophet  receive  their 
doorn ;  but  there  remains  yet  one  enemy,  death.  This  is 
the  last  enemy,  and  the  destruction  of  this,  Paul  says,  closes 
up  the  dispensation,  forms  the  consummation.  "  The  last 
enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is  death."  Here  then,  in  v. 
26,  Prof  S.  might  have  found  Paul's  allusion  to,  not  his  as- 
sertion  of,  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked,  and  not  in  v.  24, 
as  he  says.  The  scenes  of  the  great  final  closing  up  the 
work  of  judgment,  at  the  termination  of  Millennial  sway, 
when  the  wicked  dead  shall  be  raised, — hell  judged,  and 
all  men  then  alive  on  the  earth,  or  that  have  ever  lived, 
have  their  eternal  state  determined,  is  "  the  end,^'  the  end 
of  the  mediatorial  sway  of  Christ — not  the  annihilation  of 
the  globe. 

It  is  said  by  John,  that  the  earth  and  the  heaven  shall 


"apparent  inconsistencies  and  INC6KGRUITIES."      143 

flee  away,  from  the  face  of  Him  that  shall  sit  on  the  great 
white  throne  to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead.  This  does 
not,  and  cannot,  mean  the  annihilation  of  the  astronomical 
earth  and  heavens, — this  planet  and  the  stars,  but  refers  to 
their  inhabitants.  The  terror  of  the  scene  will  strike  uni- 
versal horror  into  the  wretched  beings  that  shall  either  rise 
from  hell,  or  who  may  at  that  time  be  alive  on  the  earth, 
over  which  heaven's  dominion  had  swayed  one  thousand 
years,  but  no  place  shall  be  found  for  them.  They  shall  all 
appear  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ ; — they  shall  all 
stand  before  God  and  be  judged  ; — death  and  hell  shall  be 
cast  into  the  lake  of  fire ;  and  this  world,  recovered  fully 
back  to  God,  purified,  rescued  from  death,  the  seat  of 
Christ's  mediatorial  dominion,  originally  given  to  Adam, 
but  usurped  and  tyrannized  over  by  the  devil,  be  handed 
back  to  God,  restored,  and  for  ever  confirmed  as  an  integral 
part  in  the  great,  universal,  celestial  empire  of  Jehovah.  I 
am  not  concerned  to  add  any  thing  more  about  the  eternal 
dispensation  which  then  shall  succeed.  The  end  has  come ; — 
the  scheme  of  redemption  has  accomplished  its  work  :  Christ 
triumphs  :  his  saints  celebrate  his  victories,  and  share  in  his 
glory  : — the  kingdom  reverts  to  the  Father ;  and  God  for 
ever  reigns.  Yet  I  may  say,  that  the  consolidation  and  con- 
summation of  the  divine  dominion,  in  the  restored  unity  of 
the  universal  empire  of  Jehovah,  does  not  in  the  least  de- 
gree imply  but  that  still  the  earth  shall  be  the  inheritance  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  He  the  great  head,  prince  and  sovereign 
under  God,  and  the  avenue  of  access  to  Him  for  ever  for  his 
saints.  Should  a  monarch  say  to  his  son,  Reduce  to  subjec- 
tion that  revolted  province,  unite  it  to  my  dominion,  and  it 
shall  be  your  inheritance,  in  which,  under  me,  you  shall 
reign,  it  would  be  easy  to  see  how,  on  its  reduction  and  his 
delivering  it  up  to  his  father,  the  father's  dominion  should 
be  entire,  and  yet  the  son  have  the  principality  still.  Thus 
it  is  that  Christ  reigns  one  thousand  years,  the  end  comes. 


144<  PROF.  STUART  S  CHARGE  OF 

He  delivers  up  the  kingdom,  and  yet  He  reigns  for  ever  and 
ever  in  His  everlasting  kingdom. 

The  reader  cannot  fail  now  to  perceive,  how  baseless  is 
Prof.  S.'s  charge,  of  want  of  candour,  preferred  against  me^ 
because,  as  he  insinuates,  I  felt  that  1  Cor.  xv.  militated 
against  the  views  I  had  expressed,  and  therefore  most  sus- 
piciously abstained  from  all  reference  to  it.  It  is  of  a  piece 
with  his  attempt,  in  closing  up  his  charge,  to  make  it  appear 
that  I  contradict  the  apostle.  *'  Paul,"  he  says,  "  as  before 
remarked,  puts  the  resurrection  of  the  saints  at  the  end  of 
the  world,  1  Cor.  xv.  24  ,  but  Mr.  D.  before  the  Millennium." 
App.  p.  181.  He  has  not  proved  the  first  part  of  this  asser- 
tion, nor  is  it  implied  in  the  24th  verse  to  which  he  refers, 
as  I  have  shown,  at  least  in  his  sense  of  the  words. 

As  to  my  mixing  up  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  together, 
in  the  Millennium,  it  is  what  he  has  done  himself  avowedly, 
and  to  an  extent  that  leaves  far  in  the  rear  most  commenta- 
tors of  his  own  class.  See  Hints,  &lc.,  pp.  141-143.  I 
challenge  him  to  produce  the  proof  from  the  Dissertations, 
of  my  having  mixed  up  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  as  he 
says,  or  of  having  made  any  allusion  to  the  presence  of  any 
wicked  on  earth,  durinor  the  Millennial  reign  of  Christ  and 
his  saints,  save  in  referring  to  the  prediction  of  Isaiah  Ixv. 
20,  and  that  without  even  expressing  my  views  as  to  the  full 
or  precise  import  of  the  passage,  having  alluded  to  it  but  for 
one  specific  purpose,  viz.,  the  quick  retribution  that  shall  be 
seen  in  the  comparatively  early  death  of  individuals,  who 
might  be  found  *'  sinners,"  under  the  Millennial  dispensation. 
But  I  have  offended,  and  must  by  some  means  be  convicted. 
I  do  not  belong  to  the  school  of  Prof  S.,  nor  have  I  ever 
cared  to  obtain  the  sanction  of  one  whom  the  little  myrmi- 
dons that  court  his  favour,  style  "  the  giant  in  biblical  litera- 
ture." This  perhaps  is  my  offence.  I  have  dared  to  dissent 
from  him,  to  deny  his  assumptions  and  exegesis,  and  to  state, 
distinctly,  the  reasons  of  my  dissent  and  denial.     He  has  not 


"apparent  inconsistencies  and  incongruities."    145 

condescended  to  notice  them ;  but  attempts  authoritatively, 
and  Math  ridicule,  to  silence  me  and  put  me  aside.  But 
whatever  he  and  his  flatterers  may  think,  I  have  neither  at- 
tempted, nor  thought  of  rivalship.  I  have  felt  perfectly  sat- 
isfied if  I  have  the  sanction  of  the  Bible,  fairly  and  honestly 
interpreted.  And  that  I  have  not  erred  so  egregiously  as 
Prof  S.  attempts  to  make  his  readers  believe,  I  can  refer  to 
names  good  and  great, — as  good  and  great  as  Prof  S.  or 
any  of  his  admirers  can  claim  to  be, — in  support  of  all  that 
I  have  stated,  to  be  the  belief  of  Millenarian  writers, 
high^in  fame  for  learning  and  piety. 

duicquid  sum  ego,  quamvis 
Infra  Lucilis,  sensum  ingeniinnque,  tan)en   me 
Cum  magniis  vixisse,  inviia  faiebitur  usque 
Invidia,  et,  fragili  quoerens  iilidere  dentem, 
Off'endet  solido. 

What  though  with  great  Lucilius  I  disclaim 
All  saucy  rivalship  of  birth  or  fame, 
Spite  of  herself,  even  Envy  must  confess, 
That  I  the  sanction  of  the  great  possess, 
And,  if  she  dare  attempt  my  honest  fame, 
Shall  break  her  teeth  against  my  solid  name. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

PROF.    STUARt's    remarks    ON    HIS    PRINCIPLES    OF     INTERPRE- 
TATION. 

With  these,  in  general,  if  I  understand  them,  I  have  no 
fault  to  find.  He  has  stated  them,  distinctly  enough,  in  his 
writings,  and  comments  on  others  who  have  written  on  this 
subject,  and  in  his  App.  p.  183.  But  from  his  application  of 
them,  growing  mainly  out  of  his  confusion  of  thought,  in  re- 
ference to  analogical  language,  and  from  one  or  two  assump- 
tions for  that  purpose,  I  do  most  pertinaciously  dissent,  for 
reasons  which,  I  think,  the  candid  and  unprejudiced  reader 
will  deem  abundantly  sufficient.  He  says  that  language, — 
which,  in  its  primary  meaning,  being  employed  to  denote 
sensible  objects  and  actions,  must  have  a  sensible  import,  by 
reason  of  the  very  necessities  of  the  case, — possesses  an  ana- 
logical significancy,  when  used  in  relation  to  things  and  ac- 
tions wholly  mental ;  and  gives  examples  of  words  of  this 
sort,  expressing  various  mental  acts,  such  as  understanding, 
comprehension,  perception,  idea,  imagination,  &,c.  So  far, 
well. 

Hence,  having  no  direct  and  immediate,  or  intuitive  per- 
ceptions of  God,  and  things  purely  spiritual,  we  are  necessi- 
tated to  speak  of  Him  and  of  them,  as  he  says,  more  humano, 
that  is,  in  terms  that  originally  denote  sensible  objects  and 
actions.  Such  is  the  language  which  the  Bible  employs,  to 
designate  God  and  his  natural,  intellectual,  and  moral  per- 
fections.    Thus  far  also  it  is  well. 

All  that  Professor  S.  says  here,  has  long,  long  since,  been 
well  and  truly  said,  even  by  the  Fathers  whose  puerilities-  he 
affects  so  heartily  to  despise,  and  of  which  even  modern  fa- 
thers, I  might  add,  are  sometimes  guilty.     The  more  sober 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  1^1 

and  intelligent  of  them  denied,  that  we  can  have  any  direct 
perception,  of  any  thing  in  the  divine  nature,  by  spiritual 
ideas,  or  .by  a  direct  intuition,  or  by  any  supernatural  notions 
and  conceptions  infused  directly  from  above.  Here,  to 
speak  metaphorically,  the  eye  of  the  mind  is  just  as  blind 
as  the  eye  of  the  body.  So  Chrysostom,  Gregory  Nyssen, 
Nazianzen,  Plotinus,  Justin  Martyr,  Cyril,  Hilary,  Athana- 
sius,  and  especially  Tertullian, — to  quote  them  irrespectively 
of  their  priority  or  posteriority  in  point  of  time. — thought 
and  expressed  themselves.  God  could  have  no  intercourse 
with  2is,  said  Tertullian,  otherwise  than  hy  taking  on  himself 
the  Dialect  of  our  senses  and  affections.  With  the  mystic 
theology,  which  grew  out  of  certain  principles  of  the  Plato- 
nic philosophy,  taught  by  the  Alexandrian  philosophers,  and 
applied  to  Christianity,  arose  different  notions  and  modes  of 
speech,  with  respect  to  our  knowledge  of  God,  which  may 
yet  be  traced  in  the  schools  and  systems  of  modern  days. 
Whatever  may  be  said  about  union,  and  contemplation; 
about  the  philosophic  lying  beneath  the  spontaneous  con- 
sciousness ;  and  about  transcendental  knowledge  of  the 
Deity,  it  will  not  be  pretended,  that  the  idiom  of  metaphysi- 
cians, and  of  mystic  theologians,  is  to  be  made  the  rule  for 
the  interpretation  of  Scriptural  language  in  reference  to  spi- 
ritual realities ;  or,  as  Professor  S.  has  it,  "  the  invisible 
worlds 

He  has  said  that  "  some  analogy,  real  or  supposed,  lies  at 
the  foundation"  of  the  language,  employed  to  express  our 
views  of  things  strictly  and  exclusively  mental  or  spiritual, 
p.  183.  But  in  the  use,  which  he  has  made  of  this  important 
principle,  he  shows  that  he  has  confounded  Analogy  and 
Metaphor,  and  has  left  his  reader  in  utter  perplexity,  without 
any  assignable  or  imaginary  clew,  by  which  to  unravel  the 
import  of  words,  when  used  either  analogically  or  tropically. 
I  deny  that  these  are  convertible  expressions,  any  more  than 
that  the  things  which  they  are  employed  to  express,  are  at 


lis 


PROF.    STUART  S    RKMARKS    ON    HIS 


all  identical,  He  has  assumed  that  they  are.  No  wonder, 
therefore,  that  he  is  himself  perplexed,  and  finds  it  difficult 
to  apprehend  the  meaning  of  those  who  think  and  write  with 
more  precision.  To  expose  his  fallacy  here,  it  is  necessary 
for  me  to  be  a  little  more  explicit  and  full  on  this  subject 
than  he  has  been. 

Of  the  substance  of  God,  as  a  Being  really  existing,  we 
have  no  knowledge,  and  can  have  none ;  because  we  can 
find  nothing,  in  the  utmost  stretch  of  our  conceptions,  which 
we  can  adopt  as  a  representative  of  it, — nothing  whatever, 
between  which  and  it,  we  can  trace  or  assume  any  analogy. 
It  is  true,  that  we  call  him  a  Spirit,  and  Light,  &/C.,  as  the 
nearest  approximation  we  can  make  to  an  idea  of  his  essence. 
But  what  do  we  mean  by  these  words  ?  and  how  do  we  apply 
them  to  God  ?  Spirit,  in  its  original  sensible  import,  means 
breath.  We  take  this  subtile  element,  as  the  convenient  rep- 
resentative of  our  own  sentient  minds  or  spirits,  and  form  a 
conception  of  them  as  something  entirely,  essentially  differ- 
ent and  distinct  from  matter.  Christ's  own  explanation  of 
the  popular  conception  is  given  negatively — **  A  spirit  hath 
not  flesh  and  bones."  But,  as  to  any  direct,  intuitive,  or 
other  knowledge  of  the  substance  or  essence  of  our  immor- 
tal minds  or  spirits,  we  have  none ;  and  therefore  can  have 
no  more  definite  and  distinct  knowledge  of  the  Essence  or 
substance  of  God,  whom,  nevertheless,  we  call  a  Spirit.  As 
to  light,  we  have  no  knowledge  of  its  essence  either,  but 
endeavouring  to  comprehend  it  from  its  effects  and  operations, 
we  conceive  of  it,  as  some  exceedingly  subtile  element,  re- 
moved from  every  thing  we  are  accustomed  to  account  gross 
and  impure.  We  use  it,  therefore,  as  the  symbol  or  repre- 
sentative of  different  things,  according  to  the  character  or 
form  of  its  operations — design  ating^wnVz/  at  onetime  by  it, 
and  knmoieuge  at  another,  between  both  which  things,  and 
something  answerable  in  the  operations  and  manifestations 
of  God,  we  can  trace  an  analogy. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION. 


ii^ 


I  In  like  manner,  when,  by  means  of  scriptural  expressions 
on  this  subject, — designed  to  reveal  to  us,  and  to  assist  us 
in  forming  some  conceptions  of,  the  different  attributes  or 
perfections  of  God, — we  speak  of  His  goodness,  love,  pow- 
er, forbearance,  wisdom,  justice,  holiness,  &lc.,  we  first  con- 
ceive of  something  in  us,  which  we  have  learned  thus  to 
express,  according  to  a  process  of  thought  not  here  neces- 
sary to  state,  and  making  these  things  in  us  representatives 
of  something  analogous,  i.  e.  correspondent  or  answerable  to 
them  in  God,  use  the  same  language  to  express  our  views  of 
His  properties.  I  state  the  idea  in  the  language  of  a  clear 
and  profound  thinker  and  writer.  *'  There  must  be  some- 
thing, in  the  Divine  nature,  that  bears  a  similitude  only,  and 
correspondency,  with  the  commendable  passions  and  affec- 
tions (and  I  may  add  powers)  of  a  human  soul :  for  other- 
wise, there  would  be  no  analogy  between  them;  and  then, 
those  perfections  in  God,  the  nature  of  which  are  signi- 
fied by  them,  would  be  as  truly  the  very  same  in  kind  with 
your  passions  and  mine,  as  the  passions  and  affections  of  any 
other  man.  The  reason  is,  if  we  ascribe  knowledge  to  God 
which  in  us  is  performed  hy  ratiocination ;  that  is,  by  think- 
ing, which  requires  the  help  of  imperceptible  fibres  in  the 
brain,  and  the  concurrence  of  the  animal  spirits ;  we  may 
as  safely  ascribe  to  him  those  passions  and  affections,  which 
are  also  the  operations  of  the  rational  soul,  composed  of 
matter  and  spirit  acting  in  essential  union.  These  indeed 
show  themselves,  more  in  the  sensitive  part  of  the  body,  than 
ratiocination  or  the  motions  of  the  will ;  that  is,  than  the 
several  modes  of  thinking  and  willing ;  and  are  attended  with 
a  more  extraordinary  commotion  of  spirits.  But  there  is 
still  a  motion  or  commotion  of  bodily  parts  and  spirits  in 
both,  which  are  often  even  wasted  and  impaired  by  intense- 
ness  and  vehemence  of  thinking  and  willing.  And  there- 
fore, all  to  be  inferred  from  thence  is,  that  in  this  state  of 
corrupt  nature,  our  passions  are  ascribed  to  God,  in  a  lower 

8* 


150  PROF,  stuart's  remarks  on  his 

degree  of  analogy,  than  our  intellectual  operations  and  moral 
virtues  :  though  in  a  state  of  innocence,  they  must  have  been 
all  equally  complete  representations  of  the  divine  perfec- 
tions." 

This  is  not  to  attribute  human  passions  and  affections  to 
God.  Nor  is  it  saying,  that  if  we  infinitely  remove  all  im- 
perfections which  attend  their  existence  and  development 
in  us,  they  will  then  be  literally  and  properly  passions  and 
affections  in  God,  of  the  same  kind  in  Him  that  they  are  in 
us :  for,  remove  all  the  imperfection  incident  to  those  com- 
motions of  bodily  parts  with  which  they  are  blended,  and 
the  passions,  &c.  are  extinguished  ;  and  when  we  undertake 
to  attribute  them,  as  the  Bible  teaches  us,  to  the  disembodied 
spirit,  it  is  only  as  bearing  some  analogy  with  what  we  now 
experience,  that  we  can  form  any  conception  of  them.  In 
like  manner,  when  we  speak  of  them  in  reference  to  God, 
who  is  a  pure  unembodied  spirit,  we  do  not  affirm  them  to 
be  of  the  same  kind,  but  something  in  his  nature  analogous 
with  what  we  find  in  our  own,  so  as  to  make  the  latter  suit- 
able representatives  of  the  former. 

This  analogy  is  founded,  solely  and  primarily,  not  on  the 
imperfection  of  human  language,  which  necessitates  us  to 
resort  to  tropes  and  figures  of  speech,  as  Prof  S.  says,  to 
express  the  resemblances  we  may  design  to  trace ;  but  on 
the  interesting,  wonderful,  and  to  us  honourable  and  glorious 
fact,  that  God  made  man  in  His  own  likeness  after  His  oicn 
image.  He  laid  a  foundation,  in  the  very  constitution  of  our 
nature,  by  virtue  of  which,  we  contemplate  somewhat  of 
Himself  by  the  help  of  what  we  could  discern  in  ourselves ; 
and  although,  in  its  splendid  and  glorious  moral  features, 
that  image  has  been  greatly  blurred  and  defiled  by  the  fall, 
yet  has  it  not  been  wholly  defaced  or  obliterated,  as  Paul 
teaches,  by  denominating  even  fallen  man  still  the  Image 
of  God.  For  had  that  been  the  case  we  could  no  more 
have   ever  attained  to  any  knowledge  of  God,  than  can  the 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  151 

brute  creation — since  the  very  basis,  on  which  all  our  know- 
ledge of  Him  rests,  or  rather,  the  very  processes  of  mind,  in  the 
exercise  of  which  God  originally  ordained  we  should  possess 
the  knowledge  of  Himself,  would  have  been  utterly  destroyed. 

It  was  owing  to  the  neglect,  or  ignorance,  of  tliis  impor- 
tant fact,  which,  for  distinction's  sake,  may  be  called  divine 
analogy  J  that  men  run  into  the  two  extremes,  either  of 
making,  with  some  Arians  and  Socinians,  the  language  ap- 
plied to  the  nature  and  operations  of  God,  literal,  and  so 
materialize  the  Deity  ;  or  with  certain  metaphysical  scholas- 
tic writers,  of  making  it  metaphorical,  and  so  denying  that 
there  is  any  thing,  in  reality,  in  the  nature  of  the  Divine 
Being,  answerable  to  the  moral  virtues  and  perfections,  and 
in  their  laborious  efforts  to  obtain  some  direct,  intuitive 
knowledge  of  God,  to  mysticise  their  conceptions  of  Him, 
and  foster  the  wildest  enthusiasm. 

The  same  remarks  apply,  with  equal  force  and  truth,  to 
the  angelic  intelligences  of  Heaven.  As  to  any  properties, 
which,  as  simple  spirit,  they  possess,  we  know  no  more  about 
them  than  as  there  is  something  in  their  nature  analogous 
with  our  own.  This,  we  are  led  to  believe  from  the  facts, 
that  they  have  assumed,  at  times,  external  visible  forms  and 
manifestations ;  that  they  had  converse  and  communion  with 
men  ;  and  also,  that  the  Bible  expresses  some  of  their  proper- 
ties, by  terms  which  designate  those  of  our  own  nature.  Still 
there  are  certain  acts,  just  as  in  the  case  of  God  Himself, 
which  they  are  stated  to  perform,  implying  powers,  of  which 
we  can  form  no  conception  ;  because  we  can  discern  nothing 
in  ourselves  analogous  or  answerable  thereto,  so  that,  both 
of  God  and  of  them  we  are  constrained  to  confess,  it  is  but 
in  part  only  that  we  have  knowledge. 

Now,  beyond  God,  angelic  and  satanic  intelligences,  the 
disembodied  spirits  of  our  own  kind,  the  raised  Redeemer, 
and  those  of  his  saints  that  were  either  quickened  or  raise  d 
with  Him,  we  have  no  manner  of  knowledge  or  hint  what. 


152  PROF.  Stuart's  remarks  on  his 

ever.  Of  whatever  other  existences  there  may  be  in  the 
spiritual  world,  we  hiow  nothing.  "  The  world  of  mind," 
as  Professor  S.  calls  it,  meaning  the  actings  of  the  human 
intellect  in  this  present  stage  of  our  existence — the  incarnate 
mind — not  the  unembodied  or  disembodied  mind,  but  plainly 
the  mind  of  man  in  the  flesh,  does  not  properly  belong  to  the 
spiritual  world.  It  is  part  and  parcel  of  this  fallen  world, 
and  we  have  a  variety  of  means  by  which  to  obtain  know- 
ledge of  its  actings  and  properties,  other  than  the  analogy 
appropriate  to  the  spiritual  world.  It  is  a  mere  metaphor, 
or  trope  of  speech,  which  Professor  S.  uses  when  he  talks  of 
"  the  world  of  mind"  in  contradistinction  from  "  the  world  of 
matter."  He  means  the  mind  of  man  in  this  world— while 
yet  in  connection  with  and  operating  in  the  flesh — a  thing 
as  different  from  the  mind  of  angels  and  disembodied  saints, 
as  earth  is  from  Heaven,  and  angels  from  men.  He  shall 
not,  therefore,  be  allowed  to  confound  them,  and  then  at- 
tempt to  spiritualize  and  mysticise  the  whole  gospel  of  the 
grace  of  God,  by  telling  us,  that  the  very  same  sort  of  ana- 
logy, which  forms  the  foundation  of  our  knowledge  of  God, 
of  angels,  and  of  the  spiritual  invisible  world — (he  means  by 
invisible,  devoid  of  sensible  manifestations) — is  to  be  adopted 
by  us,  as  the  basis  of  all  our  conceptions  and  knowledge  of 
the  things  which  God  has  revealed  to  us,  concerning  the 
scheme  of  redemption,  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  and  the 
coming  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  the  prophets  declare  shall 
have  their  developments  and  manifestations  in  this  world, 
among  and  before  rational  creatures  living  in  the  flesh.. 

Professor  S.  has  deceived  himself  and  his  reader,  by  mis- 
apprehending and  misstating  the  true  foundation  of  the  im-. 
port  of  analogical  language.  He  has  excluded  the  living 
active  mind  of  man  in  this  world,  now  dwelling  in  the  flesh, 
with  all  its  external  sensible  manifestations  and  facilities  for 
our  obtaining  knowledge  of  its  actifigs  and  holding  commun- 
ion with  it,  as  completely  and  absolutely  from  this  world, 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  153 

tiS  i&'tft^'Tlfiig'een  world  of  spirits,  where  God  and  Christ  and 
the  angels  and  saints  now  dwell.  Speaking  of  the  "  invisible 
world,  and  all  the  beings  and  objects  that  belong  to  it,"  he 
says,  **  they  are  not  objects  of  sense  to  us."  But  the  mind 
of  mBn  in  this  world,  does  manifest  itself  by  external  sensi- 
ble sounds,  expressions  and  actions.  The  language  which 
we  use  to  express  such  actions  and  manifestations,  of  course 
is  taken  from  sensible  objects,  and  we  understand  it  well, 
because  we  assume,  and  are  so  constituted  that  we  do  as- 
sume, the  existence  of  an  analogy  in  the  actings  of  mind, 
with  its  external  bodily  actings  in  and  through  the  flesh.  It 
is  not  mere  tropical  language,  therefore,  which  we  employ, 
when  we  speak  of  intending,  perceiving,  comparing,  com- 
prehending, imagining,  concluding,  and  the  like — we  mean 
to  express  something  more,  yea,  much  more,  than  mere  meta- 
phorical resemblance,  even  the  correspondence  and  agree- 
ment, in  the  very  nature  of  the  mind's  actings,  with  the  ex- 
ternal sensible  actings  by  which  it  manifests  them,  or  by 
which  we  express  them,  so  that  there  is  an  analogy,  which 
has  its  foundation,  not  in  the  mere  tropes  and  embellish- 
ments of  diction,  but  in  the  nature  of  things. 

What  we  thus  learn  of  our  own  mental  and  moral  acts 
and  properties,  and  express  on  the  foundation  of  such  an  an- 
alogy between  the  inner  actings  of  the  mind  and  its  outer 
manifestations,  becomes,  in  its  turn,  the  means  of  knowing 
and  expressing  our  conceptions  of  God,  and  of  perfectly 
pure  unembodied  mind,  by  reason  of  the  analogy  assumed  to 
exist,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  between  unembodied  and 
embodied  mind. 

The  employment  of  tropical  language  is  done  with  dif- 
ferent intent,  and  altogether  on  different  principles.  Prof. 
S.  has  lost  sight  of  the  important  and  essential  distinction 
between  them,  and  confounded  analog^/  and  metaphor.  For 
he  says,  that  "  spiritual  objects  of  the  eternal  and  unseen 
world,  cannot  be  the  same  as  the  material  ones,  from  which 


language  has  taken  its  origin.  Of  course  a  tropical  use  of 
words,  at  the  foundation  of  which  some  analogy  real  or  sup- 
posed lies,  is  the  only  use  which  can  be  supposed  or  sanc- 
tioned in  cases  like  these,"  that  is,  when  we  speak  of  God, 
of  Christ,  of  the  spiritual  world,  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven, 
and  of  other  invisible  realities.  He  evidently  thinks,  and 
so  reasons,  that  there  is  but  one  or  other  of  two  alternatives 
to  be  adopted.  Either  our  language  must  be  understood 
literally,  which  being  taken  from  sensible  objects  and  ac- 
tions, cannot,  without  absurdity,  be  so  understood  when  ap- 
plied to  God  and  spiritual  things,  or  tropically,  that  is,  as  he 
attempts  to  explain  himself,  "  we  must  give  to  these  latter 
declarations" — he  means  analogical  expressions — "  a  sense, 
which  will  make  them  compatible  with  the  loell  known  nature 
oi  spirits  J' 

Now,  not  to  notice  for  the  present,  the  excessive  con- 
fusion and  floundering  of  thought  here,  let  us  for  a  moment, 
put  his  position  to  the  test.  By  tropical  language,  he  under- 
stands metaphorical,  figurative  expressions,  applied  to  God 
and  spiritual  things.  He  has  admitted,  that  our  use  of  them 
in  reference  to  these  things,  is  founded  on  some  real  or  sup' 
posed  analogy,  so  that  all  he  has  said  on  this  subject,  when 
fairly  brought  out  of  the  confusion  in  which  it  lays  in  his 
own  thoughts,  amounts  to  just  this,  and  no  more,  that  we 
conceive  of  God  and  spiritual  things — the  spiritual  world — 
by  analogy,  and  express  them  only  by  metaphor  ;  for  that  is 
the  trope  of  speech,  under  which  the  expressions  he  particu- 
larizes must  be  classed.  "  He  might  just  as  well  have  said, 
we  conceive  of  them  only  by  Hyperbole,  and  express  them 
by  Irony.^^ 

I  have  said  that  analogy,  which  Professor  S.  confesses 
lies  at  the  foundation  of  our  knowledge  of  God,  and  meta- 
phor, or  tropes  of  speech,  are  very  different.  "  Metaphor 
in  general,"  says  the  author  already  referred  to,  "is  a  sub- 
stitution  of  the  idea  or  conception  of  one  thing,  with  the 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  15§ 

term  belonging  to  it,  to  stand  for  another  thing,  on  account  \/ 
of  an  appearing  similitude  only,  without  any  real  resemblance 
and  true  correspondency  between  the  things  compared,  as 
when  the  Psalmist  describes  the  verdure  and  fruitfuhiess  of 
vallies,  by  laughing  and  singing.  Analogy  in  general,  is 
the  substituting  the  idea  or  conception  of  one  thing  to  stand 
for  and  represent  another,  on  account  of  a  true  resemblance, 
and  correspondent  reality  in  the  very  nature  of  the  things 
compared.  They  both  agree  in  this,  that  they  are  equally  a 
substitution  of  the  idea,  or  conception,  of  one  thing  to  stand 
for  another ;  and  that,  by  these  a  word  is  transferred  from 
\\&  first  and  proper  signification,  to  express  some  other  thing 
in  a  more  remote  and  secondary  meaning.  They  agree  also 
in  this,  that  the  substituted  ideas  or  conceptions  cannot,  either 
in  analogy  or  metaphor,  represent,  to  our  mind  any  thin 
of  the  real,  true,  essential  nature  of  the  objects  they  stand 
for,  i.  e.,  as  they  are  in  themselves.  They  only  furnish  us  at 
best  with  similitudes  or  representative  and  mediate  concep- 
tions of  those  objects.  But  they  differ  in  this.  First,  that 
the  ground  a.nd  foundation  of  metaphor,  consists  only  in  an 
appearing  or  imaginary  resemblance  and  correspondency, 
as  when  God  is  said  to  have  hands,  and  eyes,  and  ears.  But 
the  foundation  of  analogy  is  an  actual  similitude,  and  a  real 
correspondency  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  which  lays  a 
foundation  for  a  parity  of  reason  even  between  things  dif- 
ferent in  nature  and  kind:  as  when  God  is  said  to  have 
kh,owledge,  power  and  goodness.  They  differ  in  this  :  meta- 
phor is  altogether  arbitrary,  and  the  result  merely  of  the 
imagination ;  it  is  rather  a  figure  of  speech  than  a  real  si- 
militude and  comparison  of  things,  and  therefore  is  properly 
of  consideration  in  Rhetoric  and  Poetry.  But  analogy,  be- 
ing built  on  the  very  nature  of  things  themselves,  is  a  neces- 
sary and  useful  method  of  conception  and  reasoning,  and 
therefore  of  consideration  in  Physics  and  Metaphysics.  It  is 
the  result  of  reason  viewing  the  true  nature  of  beings.     The 


156  PROF.  Stuart's  remarks  ox  his 

comparison  here  contains  something  not  only  actual  and 
real,  but  correspondent  and  similar ;  and  the  parity  of  rea- 
soning upon  it  is  just  and  true." 

It  is  very  easy  therefore,  from  this  very  clear  and  satisfac- 
tory view  of  the  matter,  to  determine  when  language,  applied 
to  God  and  spiritual  beings,  has  a  mere  figurative  or  meta- 
phorical import,  as  when  Christ  is  called  a  door,  the  vine, 
the  way,  a  Lamb,  &/C.,  expressions  designating  a  mere  im- 
aginary resemblance;  and  when  it  has  an  analogical  import, 
according  to  which,  words  are  transferred  from  the  proper 
and  immediate  objects  of  our  senses  and  reason,  to  import 
something  divine  and  supernatural,  as  when  they  represent 
any  similar  and  correspondent  reality  in  the  nature  or  oper- 
ations of  spiritual  or  heavenly  beings,  which  is  the  case  when 
we  use  such  expressions  as  Father,  Son,  Holy  Spirit,  Redemp- 
tion, Intercession,  Throne,  Kingdom,  Dominion,  and  the  like. 

This,  no  doubt,  is  what  Prof  S.  meant  to  express,  when 
he  claims  that  such  expressions  as  new  birth,  regeneration, 
resurrection,  new  creation,  used  to  denote  the  moral  and 
spiritual  renovation  of  corrupt  and  fallen  man,  must  be  inter- 
preted "  in  a  tropical  way."  Yet  this  does  not  prove,  that 
they  are  not  employed  to  designate  "  historical  facts."  He 
says,  '*  it  is  as  much  a  matter  of  fact  and  of  history,  in  re- 
spect to  the  Christian,  that  he  has  been  born  again,  as  that 
he  has  been  physically  and  naturally  born."  Unquestiona- 
bly. But  it  would  not  be,  if  it  was  all  metaphor  or  figure, 
denoting  mere  arbitrary  or  imaginary  resemblance.  It  is 
correspondence  in  reality,  in  the  nature  of  things,  between 
the  commencement  of  a  man's  spiritual  and  moral  existence, 
as  a  renewed,  regenerated  sinner,  and  the  commencement  of 
his  physical  existence,  as  born  into  this  world — the  analogy 
between  these  things — that  makes  snch  language  import 
reality,  and  not  mere  fanciful  resemblance.  Yet  has  he 
expressed  himself  most  obscurely  and  unintelligibly,  yea, 
contrary  to  truth,  if  his  words  have  meaning,  when  he  says, 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  157 

in  reference  to  such  expressions  as  derive  their  import  from 
the  divinely  constituted  analogy  of  things,  that  "  we  must 
give  them  a  sense  which  will  make  them  compatible  with 
the  WELL  KNOWN  nature  of  spirits  /"  This  is  actually  "^ 
putting  the  cart  before  the  horse.  We  have  no  well  known 
notions,  and  can  have  no  well  knotony'iews — he  means  accu- 
rate ideas — of  the  nature  of  spirits.  All  our  knowledge  of 
them  is  complicated,  and  obtained  by  a  circuitous,  not  by  a 
direct  route,  the  basis  of  which  is  laid  in  the  analogy  be- 
tween God  and  spiritual  things,  and  the  things  which,  because 
of  this  their  correspondence,  in  the  nature  of  things,  we  use 
as  representatives  of  them. 

Prof.  S.  will  have  us  use  some  preconceived  notions  of 
the  nature  of  spirit  and  of  spiritual  things,  by  which  to  judge 
of  the  meaning  of  scriptural  language,  in  relation  to  them. 
Hear  what  he  says:  "If  then  I  am  asked,  why  I  give  a 
spiritual  exegesis  to  all  those  passages  that  respect  his 
(Christ's)  future  reign  on  earth,  my  answer  is,  that  I  do  it 
for  a  reason  which  leads  me  to  explain  all  the  anthropopathic 
expressions  concerning  God  and  the  future  w.orld  in  a  spirit- 
ual manner,  i.  e.  because  any  other  exegesis  would  be  utterly 
opposed  to  the  well  known,  and  certain  nature  and  condition 
of  the  Messianic  reign."  *'  In  fact,  one  might  just  as  well 
appropriate  and  assign  all  our  bodily  qualities  to  spirits,  as 
a:ppropriate,  to  Christ's  kingdom,  the  qualities  of  a  temporal, 
earthly,  visible,  kingdom."     App.  pp.  185,  186. 

Thus  has  Prof  S.  actually  separated  and  discarded  the 
kingdom  of  Christ  from  this  world.  By  denying,  and  ridi- 
culing, as  he  has  done,  the  idea  of  its  visibility/ — that  is,  its 
perceptibility  by  ani/  of  our  senses,  for  he  speaks  tropically, 
by  synecdoche  using  visibility  for  all  external  sensible  mani- 
festations,— he  has  made  it  as  completely  and  absolutely  a 
matter  of  mere  mind,  intellect,  spirit,  as  is  God  Himself  Hav- 
ing, in  his  extreme  confusion,  and  obscurity,  failed  to  give  us 


158  PROF,  stuirt's  remarks  on  his 

any  hints,  or  clew,  by  which  to  understand  the  import  of  lan- 
guage as  applied  to  God,  when  it  is  to  be  understood  analo- 
gically or  tropically,  and  having  left  us  wholly  to  the  do- 
minion of  our  imaginations  here,  to  explain  as  mere  me- 
taphors the  meaning  of  all  words  designating  God^s 
names,  titles,  personality,  modes  of  subsistence,  rela- 
tions, offices,  attributes,  acts,  operations  and  manifesta- 
tions, as  well  as  the  "  terminology,"  as  he  calls  it,  of  the 
whole  scheme  of  redemption,  and  of  the  mediatorial  govern- 
ment and  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ, — 
he  has  contributed  a  vast  amount,  to  sanction  the  practical 
skepticism  and  infidelity,  and  rationalism  of  the  times,  and 
to  fix  indelibly  and  for  ever,  by  his  incautious  attempt  to 
wash  it  out,  the  "  stain"  which  he  has  seen  *'  on  English 
and  American  expositors,"  who,  like  himself,  have  "  no 
standard,  no  landmark,  no  compass,"  but  "  every  man 
says,"  of  course  rightfully,  when  using  and  interpreting  me- 
taphors and  figures,  as  applied  to  God  and  spiritual  things, 
*'  what  is  right  in  his  own  eyes,  and  then  calls  upon  others 
to  agree  with  him,"  Hints,  p.  144,  because  he  claims  to 
have  some  clearer  and  better  notions  than  they,  about  the 
nature  and  ope{ations  of  mind  or  spirit  by  which  to  explain, 
or  determine  what  is  tropical  language. 

I  do  him  no  injustice  here,  and  would  not  charge  him 
with  opinions  and  positions  he  has  not  actually  advanced. 
*'  No  principle,"  says  he,  "  which  belongs  to  the  science  of 
hermeneutics  is  better  established  than  this,  viz.,  that  lan- 
guage is  always  to  be  regarded  as  tropical,  when,  if  literal- 
ly interpreted,  it  would  make  a  sense  absurd,  frigid,  incon- 
gruous, or  inconsistent  with  the  context  or  nature  of  things,^' 
App.  p.  186.  He  does  not  seem  ever  to  have  thought  dis- 
tinctly that  there  is  a  third  style  of  language,  the  analogical, 
sanctioned  by  God,  and  based  on  His  own  divine  constitu- 
tion of  things,   in  the  use  of  which,  we  express  other  than 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATf 


imaginary/,  arbitrary  resemblances,  even  tlfe^e-wfeiclTexist, 
as  has  been  shown,  m  the  nature  or  reality  9f,^ht^kings 
compared. 

What  he  has  said  in  reference  to  tropical  language  is 
correct  and  plain  enough,  except  the  word  **  frigid,"  which 
means  any  thing  or  nothing,  according  to  men's  tempera- 
ment, and  had  better  have  been  left  out.  The  rule  applies 
to  language  that  is  tropical ;  but  it  does  not  apply  to  that 
of  which  we  have  spoken,  viz.,  the  analogical,  for  God,  by 
his  own  divinely  constituted  analogy,  has  for  ever  debarred 
us  in  His  second  commandment,  from  the  indulgence  of 
our  own  imaginations,  as  well  as  our  senses,  in  the  framing 
and  employing  of  mere  pictorial  or  metaphorical,  which  are 
also  figurative,  representations  of  Himself,  and  of  heavenly 
things.  He  has  used  similitudes,  and  He  only  has  the 
right  to  do  it,  when  speaking  of  himself.  The  neglect  and 
practical  contempt  of  His  prerogative  here,  led  to  idolatry. 
Men  never  will,  never  can,  be  satisfied,  without  some  know- 
ledge of  God  and  divine  things,  which  they  can  feel  is  cer- 
tain. Tell  them  that  there  is  no  foundation  of  certain  know- 
ledge laid  in  any  analogy  at  all  between  God  and  man,  as  man 
exists  here  in  his  compounded  being,  mind  and  body — mind 
acting  and  manifesting  itself  externally  and  sensibly — but 
that  we  must  depend  on  mere  metaphorical,  tropical  repre- 
sentations of  Him,  and  it  will  drive  the  ignorant  into  the  use 
of  pictorial  images,  and  lay  the  foundation  of  idolatry,  while 
the  more  reflecting  will  resort  to  some  form  of  mysticism  or 
of  rationalism,  which  presumes  to  judge  of  God,  according  to 
preconceived  philosophical  or  metaphysical  notions  of  the 
nature  of  things.  The  dangers  of  adopting  the  literal  im- 
port of  language,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  tropical  or  meta- 
phorical, on  the  other  hand,  will  be  best  and  easiest  avoided 
by  adhering  to  God's  own  method,  the  analogical  import  of 
words  founded  on  the  divinely  constituted  resemblance  or 
analogy  in  the  nature  of  things,     In  medio  tutissitnus  ibis 


IbO  profT^tuXrt^s  rkmarks  on  his 

Prof.  S.  has  wholly  neglected  this  analogical  import  of 
language,  and  having  confounded  it  with  tropical  expressions 
and  the  plain  rule  of  Rhetoric  applicable  to  them,  must  of 
necessity  be  just  as  confused  and  bewildered  often,  in  his 
interpretation  of  other  parts  of  Scripture  beside  the  prophe- 
cies, as  are  thfey  who  undertake  to  explain  the  prophets 
and  distinguish  not  between  tropes  and  symbols. 

But  there  are  further  fallacies  in  Prof  S.'s  attempt  to 
develope  his  principles  of  interpretation.  He  contradicts 
some  of  the  plain  and  fundamental  facts  of  Scripture.  For 
he  assumes,  and  so  claims  to  interpret  the  Scriptures,  that 
Christ  and  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  the  kingdom  being  spir- 
itual, are  as  truly  in  their  nature  invisible,  devoid  of  all  exter- 
nal sensible  acts  and  manifestations,  as  is  Jehovah  himself,  the 
invisible  God.  On  this  assumption  too,  he  says,  the  pro- 
phets so  thought  and  spake  of  Christ,  and  so  expected  their 
language  would  be  interpreted,  '*  The  kingdom  of  God,"  siiys 
he,  "  is  spiritiial."  *'  The  prophets  took  it  for  granted,  that 
in  speaking  of  a  spiritual  Redeemer,  and  of  his  kingdom, 
their  language  must  be  spiritually  interpreted."  Hence  he 
concludes,  that  all  our  language  in  reference  to  Christ  and 
His  kingdom,  is  merely  tropical.  Now  he  has  not  proved 
these  assumptions ;  nor  can  he  :  for  they  are  directly  in  the 
face  of  scriptural  facts. 

Whatever  he  may  say  about  God,  as  a  pure  unembodied 
spirit,  who  is  essentially  invisible  ;  and  whatever  he  may 
think  of  our  remarks, — about  the  analogy,  which  gives  sig- 
nificance to  our  language  in  reference  to  God  and  spiritual 
things,  having  its  foundation  in  the  divine  constitution  by 
which  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God  and  after  his  like- 
ness, and  about  that  analogy  being  the  means  of  our  know- 
ledge of  Him, — one  thing  is  certain,  he  cannot  say,  that  Je- 
sus Christ  our  blessed  Redeemer  is  an  invisibh^heing,  and 
has  no  external  sensible  relations  to  the  material  universe, 
nor  interest  in  this  fallen  visible  world  of  ours.     That  He  is 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  161 

not  now  actually  seen  by  us,  is  no  more  proof,  that  he  is  in- 
visible, than  it  is,  that  Prof.  S.  is  invisible,  because  I  and 
many  others  do  not  see  him.  The  eternal  Son  of  God  be- 
came visible.  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh.  He  was  con- 
stituted and  still  "  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,"  Col.  i. 
15,  "  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the  express  image  oiYns 
person,"  Heb.  i.  3.  He  took  upon  him  a  material  nature, 
and  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  lived,  acted,  suffered  and 
died  among  men ;  all  literally  true.  In  that  very  body,  which 
had  died,  which  was  pierced  in  its  side  and  hands  and  feet 
and  marred  in  its  countenance.  He  rose  again.  His  human 
soul  resumed  its  relation  to  matter  ;  rising  from  the  dead. 
He  again  appeared,  acted,  ate,  spake,  and  consorted  with 
men  in  the  flesh,  for  the  space  of  forty  days.  He  was  known 
by  his  followers,  recognized  as  the  same — their  identical  Lord 
and  Master. 

Thomas  was  incredulous,  and  when  told  of  his  resurrec- 
tion, deemed  that  it  must  have  been  an  apparition  which  the 
other  apostles  had  seen,  and  would  not  be  convinced  to  the 
contrary,  insisting  that  he  must  first  "  see  in  his  hands  the 
print  of  the  nails,  and  put  his  finger  into  the  print  of  the 
nails^  and  thrust  his  hand  into  his  side/'  John  xx.  25,  that 
is,  must yceZ  him,  as  well  as  see  him — exercise  the  very  sense 
by  which  we  have  the  presence  of  a  material  world.  The 
Saviour  subsequently  appeared  to  him,  and  said,  "  Reach 
hither  thy  finger,  and  behold  my  hands ;  and  reach  hither 
thy  hand,  and  thrust  it  into  my  side,  and  be  not  faithless 
but  believing,"  v.  27.  Verily  he  would  have  been  unbeliev- 
ing still,  on  Prof.  S.'s  principle,  a  notion  about  a  spiritual 
body  being  devoid  of  all  materiality,  if  on  reaching  forth 
his  hand,  he  had  not  felt  as  well  as  seen.  It  would  have  but 
confirmed  him  in  his  belief  that  it  was  only  a  spirit,  an  ap- 
parition that  both  he  and  the  apostles  had  seen,  and  not  what 
he  found  it  to  be,  his  Lord  and  his  God. 

In.that  same  body,  the  Saviour  often  afterwards  appeared 


16^ 


PROF.    STUART'S    REMARKS    ON    HIS 


to  the  disciples,  having  eaten  before  them,  Luke  xxiv.  42, 
43,  and  having,  as  Luke  says,  "  showed  himself  alive,  after 
bis  passion,  by  many  infallible  proofs,  being  seen  of  them 
forty  days."  Acts  i.  3.  Paul  says  "  he  was  seen  of  live  hun- 
dred brethren  at  once."  1  Cor.  xv.  6.  I  am  not  concerned 
to  say,  think,  or  imagine,  what  were  the  properties  of  his 
raised  or  spiritual  body.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  know,  that 
the  Redeemer  did  not  become  so  spiritual,  as  to  be  invisible 
to  mortal  men.  He  still  retained  some  connection  with 
matter.  That  he  ever  parted  with  the  materiality  he  had 
after  his  resurrection.  Prof  S.  has  produced  no  proof;  nor 
can  he  :  for,  in  that  same  visible  body  he  ascended  into 
heaven,  and  was  followed  by  the  wondering  gaze  of  his  dis- 
ciples, till  "  a  cloud  received  him  out  of  their  sight."  Acts 
i.  9.  In  that  same  glorious  body,  he  subsequently  appeared 
to  Saul  of  Tarsus,  and  was  identified  by  him  as  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  so  that  he  became  qualified,  with  all  the  other 
apostles,  to  testify  the  fact  of  his  resurrection.  "Last  of 
all,"  says  he,  "  he  was  seen  of  rhe  also."  1  Cor.  xv.  8.  All 
this  was  literally  true.  And  the  angels  who  appeared  to  the 
wondering  apostles  that  had  literally  seen  him  go  into  heav- 
en, announced  :  "  This  same  Jesus,  which  is  taken  up  from 
you  into  heaven,  (that  is  literally  as  they  saw,)  shall  so  come, 
in  like  manner  as  ye  have  seen  him  go  into  heaven,"  Acts 
i.  11. 

It  is  not  possible  for  language  to  assert,  in  plainer  terms 
than  this,  the  fact  of  the  visible  personal  return  of  Jesus 
Christ,  in  the  same  body  with  which  he  ascended  into  heav- 
en. Language  must  have  lost  all  its  meaning,  and  we  must 
for  ever  be  at  the  mercy  of  the  whims,  and  conceits,  and 
philosophical,  metaphysical  absurdities  and  nonsense  of  phi- 
lologists, critics,  professors,  and  what  not,  if  we  are  to  be 
told,  that  Christ  has  parted  with  all  his  materiality,  become 
an  invisible  spirit,  and  will  not,  as  literally  and  truly  appear, 
and  be  seen  again,  as  when  he  went  into  Heaven.    And  yet 


PRINCIPLES  or  INTERPRETATION.  163 

Prof.  S.,  notwithstanding  all  this  overwhelming  evidence 
from  the  word  of  God,  establishing  incontestably  these  facts, 
if  I  caii  understand  language  and  gather  the  mind  of  a  wri- 
ter from  his  expressions,  has  the  rashness,  I  must  say  the 
bold  and  daring  presumption,  to  deny,  that  the  second  com- 
ing of  Christ  will  be  visible.  Of  course  he  also  must  deny, 
that  he  ever  will  be  again  visible,  or  so  manifest  himself,  as 
to  be  seen  by  men  in  the  flesh.  "  Christ's  coming  to  extend 
and  complete  his  kingdom,"  he  says  *'  is  no  more  evidence, 
that  his  kingdom  is  visible  and  an  object  of  sense,  than  his 
coming  to  set  up  his  kingdom  at  first  [a  most  gratuitous  as- 
sertion] is  an  evidence,  that  this  kingdom  was  then  visible. 
Christ  himself  assumed  a  visible  appearance  then,  only  that 
he  might  take  on  him  our  nature  and  die  for  sin.  Heb.  ii.  9, 
14  [a  most  awkward  assertion.]  When  he  appears  a  sec- 
ond time,  there  is  no  necessity  of  assuming  such  a  nature ; 
[did  he  ever  lay  it  off?]  he  will  appear  ^  i.  e.  [let  the  reader 
mark  this]  he  will  give  manifest  tokens  of  his  presence,  only 
for  the  purpose  of  salvation — salvation  spiritual,  not  tempo- 
ral. Heb.  ix.  28."     App.  p   185. 

If  this  is  not  to  "  wrest  the  Scriptures,"  it  comes  as 
near  to  it  as  any  thing  I  can  well  conceive.  Yet  to  this 
result  is  he  driven,  to  maintain  consistently  his  fundamental 
principle  of  interpretation,  that  the  predictions,  concerning 
Christ's  coming  and  kingdom,  relate  only  to  "  the  world  of 
mind,"  and  not  at  all  to  "  the  world  of  matter."  I  deny 
that  when  Christ  first  came  literally  in  the  flesh,  it  was  then 
**  to  set  up  his  kingdom,"  as  Prof  S.  assumes  and  asserts 
it.  Let  him  produce  the  slightest  shadow  of  proof  for  it  from 
the  word  of  God.  He  tells  us  himself  distinctly  that  his 
object  was  very  different.  Where  did  Prof  S.  learn  that  it 
was  then  actually  to  set  up  his  kingdom  1  Not  a  breath  to 
this  effect  ever  dropped  from  the  Saviour's  lips.  Where  too 
did  Prof  S.  learn,  that  the  only  object  Christ  had  in  view, 
in  assuming  a  visible  appearance,  was  that  he  might  take  on 


16,4  PROF.  Stuart's  remarks  on  his 

him  our  nature  and  die  ?     I  wonder   at  the  extraordinary 
looseness  of  such  expressions. 

How  marvellously  also  has  he  been  betrayed  by  his  prin- 
ciples, into  "  a  point-blank  contradiction"  of  Paul,  Heb. 
ix.  28,  who  says,  without  any  tropes  of  speech  at  all,  that 
"  unto  them  that  look  for  him  shall  he  appear  {oq,Oricerai) 
1st  fut.  pass.,  "  SHALL  HE  BE  SEEN,"  a  secoud  time,  with- 
out sin  (a  sin-offering)  unto  salvation  ;" — of  the  two  angels 
whose  words  we  have  quoted.  Acts  i.  11; — of  John,  who 
says,  expressly,  "  Behold  he  cometh  with  clouds,  and  every 
eye  shall  see  him,  and  they  also  that  pierced  him,  and  all 
nations  shall  wail  because  of  him  ;"  Rev.  i.  7 — of  Christ 
himself,  who,  speaking  of  a  vision  of  himself,  to  occur  not 
merely  after  his  death,  but  after  his  return  to  the  Father, 
said  to  his  disciples,  "  A  little  while  and  ye  shall  not  see 
me  ;  and  again  a  little  while,  and  ye  shall  see  me,  and  be- 
cause I  go  to  the  Father."  Johnxvi.  17,  &c.  When  speaking 
of  these  being  but  the  tokens  of  Christ's  presence  onli/  for 
salvation, — *'  salvation  spiritual,  not  temporal,"  i.  e.,  as  his 
language  means,  invisible,  how  is  he  betrayed  into  "  a  point- 
blank  contradiction"  of  Peter,  who  says  of  that  salvation  ex- 
pressly, that  it  is  "  ready  to  be  revealed  in  the  last  time — at 
the  appearing  of  Jesus  Christ ;"  1  Pet.  5-7 — and  of  Paul, 
who  referred  the  Thessalonians  to  their  glorious  day  of  rest 
and  salvation,  ''when  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from 
heaven,  with  his  mighty  angels,  in  flaming  fire  taking  ven- 
geance on  them  that  know  not  God  and  obey  not  the  Gospel 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  2  Thess.  i.  7,  8. 

Surely  Prof.  S.  has  forgotten  himself,  or  forgotten  his 
Bible,  or  both,  in  his  zeal  to  establish  his  interpretation 
of  the  predictions  relative  to  the  coming  and  kingdom  of 
Christ,  by  denying  their  visibility,  as  he  has  done.  But  to 
this  result,  his  confused  notions  about  spirit,  and  "  the  world 
of  mind,"  and  *' tropical  language,"  have  driven  him.  To 
use  his  own  language,  ''  There  is  no  stopping  short  of  this, 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  165 

without  entire  and  absolute  inconsistency.  And  I  will  only 
add,  that  whatever  proves  too  much — too  much  in  such  an 
immeasurable  degree — proves  nothing,  absolutely  nothing." 
App.  p.  189. 

The  reader,  perhaps,  is  ready  to  ask,  Does  he  not  offer 
proof  of  his  assumptions  and  positions  1 — surely  he  must  have 
proof,,  clear  and  strong  as  holy  writ  ?     He  does  indeed  offer 
proof  of  his  main  position,  that  "  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
spiritual,"  of  course  he  means  entirely,  absolutely,  exclu- 
sively, for  if  not,  then  all  he  has  said,  is  but  just   beating 
against  the  air — words  to  no  purpose  ;  for   no  one  denies, 
that  the  kingdom  of  Christ   embraces  the   minds  or  spirits 
of  men,  whatever  may  be  the  degree  or  extent,  the  grandeur 
or  the  glory,  of  its  visibility.    His  proof  is,  "  So  the  Saviour 
has  most  explicitly  declared  :  *  The  kingdom  of  God  comett 
not  with  observation  ;  neither  shall  they  say  lo  here  !  or  lo 
there  !  for  behold,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you."  Luke 
xvii.  20,  21.     Did  Prof   S.  examine  the  context?  did  he 
ponder  the  language  of  Christ  here  ?     Is  he  at  all  aware  of 
the  numerous  and  pointed  criticisms,  that  he  must  meet  and 
answer  before  he  can  establish  the  meaning  he  assigns  to 
these  words  ?  and  that  this  passage  is  strictly  and  properly  a 
locus  vexatissimus,  as  he  says  ?     If  he  is  ignorant  of  these 
things,  his  ignorance  is  inexcusable.    If  he  knew  them,  and 
observed  silence  that  he  might  use  the  argumentum  ad  cap- 
tandum,  his  silence  is  highly  censurable- 
It  was  to  the  Pharisees  Christ  addressed  these  remarks. 
See  V.  28.     They  were  the  persons  who  "  demanded  when 
the  kinordom  of  God  should  come?"     His  remark  that  it 

a 

Cometh  not  by  observation,  fieta  TragartjQi^aEo^g,  was  intended 
to  be  a  declinature  of  any  satisfactory  answer  to  the  Phari- 
sees about  the  time  when  this  event  should  take  place.  The 
kingdom  of  God,  as  both  Christ  and  the  Pharisees  on  this 
occasion  used  the  phrase,  means  the  glorious  dominion  which 
God  should  establish  on  earth  under  the  reign  of  the  Mes- 

9 


166  PROF,  stuart's  remarks  on  his 

siah.  The  word  ^aQarijQi^aig,  here  translated  observation, 
occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament,  and  very  rarely 
in  classical  Greek.  It  is  derived  from  a  word,  which,  in  the 
Greek  Testament  means  to  watch  from  a  near  position — 
and  so  metaphorically  to  watch  closely,  narrowly,  or  with 
malicious  design.  Mark  iii.  2  :  Luke  vi.  7 ;  xiv.  1 ;  xx.  20  : 
Acts  ix.  24.  In  Gal.  iv.  10,  it  is  used  to  denote  the  manner 
in  which  the  Jews  kept  their  festivals,  &c.,  which  occurred 
at  fixed,  definite  times,  after  well-known  and  stated  intervals, 
so  being  objects  of  regular  anticipation,  looking  forward  to, 
or  expectation.  The  preposition  fxeta,  here  translated  ivith, 
occurring  in  connection  with  the  genitive,  is  sometimes,  in 
a  similar  connection,  translated  inter,  among — in  the  midst 
of;  and  may  denote  here  in  the  midst  of  expectation,  watch- 
ing, or  looking  closely  for  it.  Supposing  an  ellipsis  of 
aaiQov — which  may  appropriately  be  done,  as  the  subject  re- 
fers to  time  when,  &c.,  and  connecting  it  thus  with  the  ac- 
cusative, it  may  be  translated  after,  and  the  same  idea  still 
presents  itself,  viz.,  after  a  season  of  watching,  or  expectation, 
of  course  up  to  the  very  time  of  its  arrival. 

The  idea  of  Christ  then  in  this  passage  is,  that,  unlike 
their  Jewish  festivals,  whenever  the  kingdom  of  God  would 
come,  it  would  not  be  in  the  midst  of  watching  or  looking 
after  it,  not  at  a  definite  period  to  whioh  expectation  or  at- 
tention had  been  directed.  While  this  would  be  a  declining 
to  answer  their  question  when  it  would  come,  just  as  he  al- 
ways did  decline  to  answer  that  question,  by  whomsoever 
proposed,  it  nevertheless  agrees  exactly  with  other  statements 
which  he  has  made  on  the  subject.  What  he  says  after- 
wards, that "  neither  should  it  be  said  lo  here,  or  lo  there,"  is 
plainly  intended  to  intimate,  that  when  it  did  come,  it  would 
be  instantaneous,  no  time,  notice,  or  opportunity  for  observ- 
ing, announcing  or  watching  it,  however  short  in  its  progress 
after  it  made  its  appearance,  should  occur.  Before  men  would 
have  time  to  say  lo  here  !  or  lo  there  !  it  would  be  upon  them, 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  167 

right  in  the  midst  of  them.  Behold  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
in  the  midst  of  you,  Ivxog  vfiav,  not  within  you  personally,  for 
that  in  no  sense  was  true  of  the  Pharisees,  much  less  in  Prof. 
S.'s  sense,  who  to  support  his  scheme  assumes  that  the  phrase 
denotes  the  dominion  of  grace,  the  reign  of  Christ,  in  the  heart. 

The  plural  vfxmv,  you,  shows  that  he  addressed  them  col- 
lectively, as  men  dwelling  on  earth,  in  the  midst  of,  that  is 
among  whom,  the  kingdom  should  suddenly  appear.  It 
should  have  been  in  the  singular  in  order  to  convey  the  met- 
aphysical, psychological,  spiritual  meaning,  that  Prof  S. 
gives  it.  This  view  agrees  exactly  with  what  Christ,  imme- 
diately after,  said  to  his  disciples,  warning  them  against  be- 
ing deceived  by  those  who  might  tell  them  either  that  it  had 
come,  or  was  appearing  here  or  there,  and  that  they  should 
not  go  after  them  or  follow  them,  "  for  as  the  lightning  that 
lighteneth  out  of  the  one  part  under  heaven,  shineth  unto 
the  other  part  under  heaven,  so  shall  also  the  Son  of  man  be 
in  his  day."  Luke  xxiv.  24.  He  identifies  the  season  of  his 
coming  and  kingdom  ;  and  when  it  did  come  He  says  it 
would  be  sudden,  unexpected,  instantaneous,  in  the  very  midst 
of  them,  and  take  them  by  surprise,  like  the  lightning's  flash. 
This  is  one  view  of  the  passage  it  behooved  Prof.  S.  to  have 
noticed.  He  may  find  some  things,  though  not  from  a  pro- 
fessor of  biblical  literature,  in  a  work  entitled,  Essays  on  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  by  Philo-Basilicus,  deserving  his  serious  and 
attentive  consideration,  and  which,  as  an  Exegetical  profes- 
sor, he  is  not  doing  himself  or  his  students  justice  to  neglect 
any  longer. 

There  are  other  views,  that  may  be  given  of  this  passage, 
consistently  with  sound  philological  criticism  and  strict 
analysis,  but  they  all  bring  out  the  same  result.  Thus,  if 
the  phrase  Ivrog  vnav  be  translated  within  you^  it  can  mean 
no  more  than  within  their  nation.  For  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
it  is  not  true,  that  it  was  in  their  hearts,  which  Christ  would 
not  therefore  assert.     There  was,  however,  a  very  important 


168  PROF. 

sense,  in  which  the  kingdom  of  God,  at  that  time,  was  in  the 
midst  of  them,  within  their  nation.  He,  the  destined  king, 
stood  before  them.  He  was  performing  the  miracles  predict- 
ed, triumphing  over  the  devils,  and  thus  giving  proof  that 
the  dominion  of  Heaven,  the  kingdom  of  God,  was  come 
unto  them  ;  Matt.  xii.  28,  UQct  sqjdaasv  icp  vpiag  rj  ^ccGrlnicc  rov 
daov.  It  was  as  Luke  says,  "  come  upon"  them,  xi.  20.  In 
some  important  sense  it  had  so  arrived  as  to  be  at  their  very 
doors.  This  was  in  the  person  of  the  destined  king,  demonstra- 
ting his  powers  and  benevolence,  and  tendering  himself  and 
his  services  to  the  Jewish  nation,  to  whom  he  confined  his 
personal  ministry.  It  was  exactly  in  the  same  strain  that  John 
preached  the  kingdom  of  God  to  be  at  hand,  and  that  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  during  his  personal  ministry,  did  too. 

The  kingdom  in  all  its  fulness  of  bliss  and  glory  was 
preached  to  them,  offered  for  their  acceptance,  according  to 
the  design  and  extent  of  its  blessed  and  wonderful  provisions. 
Matt.  iv.  15,  17 ;  x.  7  :  Mark  i.  15  :  Luke  x.  9.  The  very 
first  step  for  them,  and  indispensably  necessary  to  possess  the 
kingdom,  and  to  secure  its  bliss  and  glory,  was  to  repent, 
to  accept  Christ,  to  yield  to  all  his  instruction,  to  give  up 
their  own  wills,  wishes,  thoughts,  notions,  reasonings,  plans, 
and  expectations,  and  to  learn  of  him.  Who  will  dare  to 
say,  that  if  the  rulers  and  Pharisees,  and  entire  Jewish  na- 
tion, had  accepted  Him  thus,  and  cleaved  to  Him  with  all 
their  heart,  Deut.  xi.  1 — 28,  God  would  not  have  been  faith- 
ful and  his  kingdom  have  been  set  up  at  once,  in  his  own 
abundantly  veritable  manner,  by  which  to  maintain  his  own 
faithfulness  1  and  thus  all  the  direful  consequences  of  his 
coming  to  his  own  and  his  own  receiving  him  not,  of  the 
Jews'  rejection  of  Christ,  and  of  the  subsequent  long  delay 
and  postponement  of  the  kingdom,  been  obviated  ?  No  man 
dare  to  say  the  contrary.  For  thus  run  God's  promises,  Deut. 
xxviii.  1 — 18,  of  old  to  the  Jewish  people,  made  through 
Moses.     Our  ignorance  as  to  how  God  would  or  could  act 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  169 

under  certain  contingencies,  forms  no  excuse  for  our  unbe- 
lief But  they  did  not  embrace  Christ  the  promised  king ;  nor 
his  proffer  of  the  kingdom  which  he  had  brought  nigh  to  them, 
and  which  had  actually  thus  come  unto  them  and  upon  them. 
Accordingly  he  distinctly  informed  them,  that  the  kingdom, 
which  had  come  nigh  them,  should  be  taken  from  them,  and 
given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof,  Matt.  xxi. 
43,  in  exact  accordance  with  what  the  Psalmist  had  predicted, 
Ps.  cxvii.  22,  23  :  Matt.  xxi.  42.  After  they  had  crucified 
*'  their  king,"  according  "^to  Pilate's  own  showing,  on  the 
cross,  and  he  had  risen  from  the  dead,  he  conversed  with, 
and  gave  commandments  to  his  apostles  about  the  kingdom 
of  God.  They  continued  still  to  preach  the  kingdom  of 
God,  not  as  set  up  and  established,  but  as  an  object  of  hope, 
desire  and  expectation — the  gospel,  or  good  news,  of  the  king- 
dom. They  went  among  the  Gentiles,  agreeably  to  the  syn- 
od of  Jerusalem's  decision.  Acts  xv.,  in  the  premises,  that  God 
by  them  might  visit  the  Gentiles,  and  take  out  of  them  a 
people  for  the  glory  of  his  name,  who  should  be,  as  Paul 
teaches,  "  heirs  of  the  kingdom."  But  the  kingdom  was  no 
longer  preached  as  having  co?ne  nigh  to  them,  either  Gentiles 
or  Jews  ;  nor  as  being  at  hand,  approaching,  as  it  had  been 
before  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  to  the  Jews.  Prophecy 
thenceforth  pointed  to  a  long  and  dark  night  to  come  upon 
the  world,  a  dreadful  tide  of  evils  that  should  flow  in  upon  it ; 
and  so  it  has  been  ever  since,  that  "  we  must  through  much 
tribulation  enter  the  kingdom  of  God." 

In  whatever  way  therefore  we  translate  the  words  of  Christ, 
agreeably  to  their  strict  grammatical  import,  we  get  no  such 
idea  as  Prof  S.  assumes.  It  makes  the  language  of  Christ 
utterly  destitute  of  precision,  and  is  directly  contradictory 
of  what  Christ  says  ;  for  the  reign  of  grace  in  the  heart, 
was  not  true  of  the  Pharisees ;  and  the  very  way  by  which 
it  is  to  be  secured,  and  to  be  advanced  in  the  world,  is  by 
close,  diligent  observation,  and  watching  of  times,  opportuni- 


no  PROF. 

ties,  occasions,  means,  and  all  other  things,  that  may  invite 
to  action,  and  promise  fair  for  the  abundant  effusions  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  or  the  success  of  missions.  Ordinarily  here, 
the  most  watchful  and  observant  are  the  most  successful ; 
yet  has  he  assumed  a  disputed  passage,  in  which  a  word  oc- 
curs that  nowhere  else  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  given 
it  a  meaning  for  which  he  can  produce  no  authority,  and 
without  one  solitary  remark,  attaching  his  own  meaning  to 
the  expressions,  palmed  it  off  upon  the  reader,  as  Christ's 
own  definition  of  the  invisible  spiritual  nature  of  his  kingdom, 
and  laid  it  down  as  the  fundamental  principle  of  his  whole 
scheme  and  system  of  interpretation  ! !  !  I  hold  Prof.  S.  ex- 
ceedingly censurable  here,  considering  the  position  he  oc- 
cupies, and  the  influence  he  sways  as  an  interpreter  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures.  Surely  he  cannot  be  ignorant  that  his 
views  have  been  contested,  and  need  strong  arguments  to  sup- 
port them.  Has  he  never,  with  all  his  fondness  for  the  Ger- 
mans, read  the  excursus  of  Koppe  on  the  formulas  "  king- 
dom of  God — of  Heaven — of  Christ,"  in  which  he  carefully 
examines,  and  analyzes  the  import  of  every  passage,  where 
the  phrases  occur,  to  determine  their  scriptural  import?  If 
not,  he  may  find  something  there  deserving  his  attention, 
and  also  a  very  clear  and  satisfactory  solution  of  the  method 
of  interpretation,  which  he,  in  common  with  many  others, 
adopts  in  relation  to  these  phrases. 

The  next  passage  he  adduces  in  support  of  his  position  as 
to  the  essential  spirituality  and  invisibility  of  Christ's  king- 
dom is,  Rom.  xiv.  17 ;  "  So,  says  Paul,  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  not  meat  and  drink,  but  righteousness  and  peace,  and  joy  in 
the  Holy  Ghost."  And  no  Millenarian  denies  or  teaches 
any  thing  to  the  contrary.  In  the  exalted  state  of  happiness, 
in  which  Christ  and  his  saints  shall  live  and  reign  together, 
there  will  be  no  place  or  occasion  for  the  differences  that 
existed  in  the  primitive  church,  about  meat  and  drink.  Why 
said  Paul,  will  you  attach  such  importance  to  these  things  here, 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  171 

when  they  shall  have  no  place  hereafter,  bat  righteousness, 
peace  and  joy  be  the  elements  of  your  delight?  This  text 
proves  nothing  for  his  position  ;  for  if  he  means  to  say,  that 
the  influence  of  Christianity ,'the  reign  of  grace  in  the  heart, 
has  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  meat  and  drink,  so  that  our 
actions  and  feelings  in  relation  to  them  form  no  part  of  our 
religion,  he  contradicts  Paul,  whose  very  object  was  to  show 
that  it  had,  and  that  it  should  make  us  willing  neither  to  eat 
meat,  or  drink  wine  all  our  days,  if  the  indulgence  of  our 
liberty  would  cause  a  brother  to  offend.  This  is  only  addi- 
tional proof,  of  the  exceeding  looseness  with  which  Prof.  S. 
quotes  and  applies  Scripture.  He  has  much  to  do  in  the 
way  of  exegesis  to  make  this  text  speak  what  he  has  cited  it 
for. 

Of  like  nature  is  the  passage  which  he  partially  quotes 
from  John  xviii,  36  : — "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world — 
not  from  hence."  Christ  in  so  saying  does  not  deny,  nor 
mean  to  teach  aught  to  the  contrary,  that  He  and  His  saints 
will  reign  on  the  earth,  which  the  Scriptures  assert  they  will ; 
much  less  that  He  and  His  kingdom  are  so  essentially  spirit' 
ual  as  to  be  invisible,  which  it  is  the  object  of  Prof.  S.  to 
prove  by  quoting  these  words.  He  disavowed  the  idea  that 
His  kingdom  was  like  the  governments  of  earth,  to  be  es- 
tablished and  maintained,  as  they  are,  by  military  powers  and 
standing  armies  :  for  he  explains  his  meaning,  which  Prof. 
S.  has  conveniently  left  out  of  view :  '*Ifmy  kingdom  were 
of  this  world,  then  would  my  servants  fight  that  I  should  not 
be  delivered  to  the  Jews  ;  but  now  is  my  kingdom  not  from 
hence."  He  was  not  then  going  to  set  up  a  visible  domin- 
ion, like  the  governments  of  earth;  and  this  was  his  answer 
to  the  charge  of  sedition  at  Pilate's  bar.  It  is  marvellous 
to  see  how  Prof  S.  has  contrived  to  make  it  prove  that  he 
will  never  have  a  visible  kingdom  on  earth  ! 

The  nature  of  this  visible  kingdom  hereafter  to  be  revealed, 
the  Jews  had  mistaken.     They  charged  Him  with  sedition. 


172  PROF.  Stuart's  remarks  on  his 

He  replied  to  the  charge,  that  now  His  kingdom  was  not  of 
this  world,  nor  was  he  seeking,  by  military  movements,  to 
establish  one.  How  does,  and  how  can  this  prove,  that  in  the 
^^  world  to  come,''  of  which  Paul  so  expressly  treats,  Heb.  ii. 
5,  he  should  not  have  a  visible  kingdom,  and  which  should 
be  established,  too,  on  the  ruins  of  the  nations  of  this  pres- 
ent world  ?  The  inference  of  Prof  S.  is  another  piegnant 
example  of  the  non  seqidtur.  To  the  same  purport,  and 
equally  fallacious,  in  point  of  logic,  is  all  he  says  about  the 
spiritual  change  necessary,  the  spiritual  enemies  with  whom 
we  have  to  combat,  and  the  holiness  and  purity  of  heart 
necessary  to  see  God.  However  true  and  important  in  them- 
selves these  things  are,  and  however  indispensably  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  a  part  or  lot  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  they 
prove  just  nothing  at  all  as  to  his  purpose.  They  do  not 
prove  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  however  deeply  His  do- 
minion may  be  seated  in  the  heart,  is  devoid  of  all  visi- 
hility,  and  shall  never  be  manifested  and  established  on  this 
earth.  It  is  a  remarkable  specimen  of  logic,  to  take  up  one 
feature  of  an  object  or  subject  described  by  an  author  in  a 
particular  place,  and  then  talk  and  reason  about  it,  assuming 
and  using  it  as  a  key-note  of  interpretation,  as  if  that  one 
feature  were  all  it  possessed,  while  the  same  author  else- 
where, and  others  too,  had  spoken  of  oiher  features  and  as- 
pects as  belonging  to  it. 

The  truth  is.  Prof  S.  has  lost  sight  of  the  foundation  which 
God  has  laid,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  in  that  divine 
analogy,  by  virtue  of  which  we  use  terms  and  expressions 
denoting  things  pertaining  to  man  in  his  being,  rchtions  and 
interests,  created  in  the  image  of  God,  and  constituted  head 
over  this  lower  creation — as  representatives  of  that  which  cor- 
responds with  them  in  God  revealing  himself  in  Jesus  Christ, 
the  second  Adam,  and  in  His  relations  and  interest  in  earth 
as  Head,  Lord,  and  **  Heir  of  all  things,"  as  well  of  this 
as  of  other  worlds.      Neglecting  these  grand  fundamental 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  173 

facts,  which,  when  apprehended,  render  all  our  language,  ta- 
ken from  sensible  objects,  and  used  either  analogically  in  ap- 
plication to  God  and  divine  and  spiritual  things,  or  even  sensi- 
bly to  Christ  and  His  kingdom,  perfectly  intelligible  and 
expressive,  certain  and  definite,  he  finds  himself  doomed  to 
float  about  in  the  ocean  of  his  imagination,  with  nothing 
but  mere  metaphorical,  tropical  terms,  to  assist  his  concep- 
tions of  these  things.  He  gives  it,  as  '*  the  consequence  of 
all  this,  that  I  feel  just  as  well  satisfied,  that  the  predictions 
respecting  the  future  state  and  prosperity  of  Christ's  kingdom 
are  to  be  spiritually  interpreted,  as  I  do  that  the  declarations 
of  Scripture  respecting  the  hands,  feet,  eyes,  ear,  mouthy, 
etc.,  of  the  Divine  Being  are  to  be  spiritually  interpreted.'*'- 

The  reader  will  perceive,  that  I  have  not  done  Prof  S. 
injustice ;  but  fairly  stated  his  principles,  and  the  results 
to  which  they  bring  him.  And  although  "  it  were  easy  to  say 
things,  that  would  occupy  as  much  space  as"  Prof  S.'s 
Hints,  on  the  subject  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God, 
his  being  constituted  the  second  Adam — made  the  Head  of 
all  his  people,  having  the  dominion,  originally  given  to  Ad- 
am and  usurped  by  the  devil  when  he  sinned,  put  into  his 
hands,  and  being  constituted  Heir  of  all  things,  according 
as  Paul  has  taught  in  his  epistle  to  the  Hebrews — a  wonder- 
ful, glorious,  and  divine  analogy — all  which  would  come 
properly  into  view,  in  estimating  the  Millenarian  views  of 
Bible  truth,  yet  enough  has  been  said,  to  show  how  vague, 
confused,  and  shadowy,  is  Prof  S.'s  scheme  of  interpreta- 
tion, as  he  has  applied  his  principles  to  the  glorious  plan  of 
redemption,  through  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ. 

I  merely  add  here,  that  his  attempt  to  make  it  appear, 
that  the  Jews  rejected  Christ,  because  they  interpreted  the 
Scriptures  literally,  as  he  says,  is  like  all  the  rest.  They 
would  not  take  the  literal  interpretation  of  their  prophets. 
That  was  the  very  stumbling  stone  :  but  having,  like  Prof. 
S.,  conceived  in  their  own  imaginings,   an  idea  of  Christ 

8* 


174  PROF.  Stuart's  remarks  on  his 

and  his  kingdom,  not  to  be  sure  the  same,  but  both  alike  the 
product  of  their  own  fancies — they  would  not  believe  the 
plain  literal  statements  of  the  prophets  about  the  first  advent,- 
under  circumstances  of  humiliation,  poverty,  suffering,  and 
contempt,  but  run  away  with  those  which  related  to  his 
second  advent,  and  interpreted  them  to  their  liking. 

As  to  my  treating  Christians  who  with  Prof.  S.  believe 
only  in  a  spiritual  invisible  kingdom,  with  disregard  and 
contumely,  it  is  much  easier  for  him  to  assert  it  than  to  prove 
by  any  thing  I  have  said.  The  contumely  is  from  the  other 
side ;  and  the  history  of  Millenarian  views,  both  from  the 
beginning  and  at  this  present  time,  will  prove  that  the  spirit 
of  vituperation,  of  persecution,  and  exclusive  claims  to  or- 
thodoxy, find  no  countenance  and  support  from  their  advo- 
vocates.  Millenarians  have  ever  plead  the  solemn  obligation 
to  exercise  implicit  faith  in  the  promises  of  God,  and  relied 
on  the  plain  evidence  of  truth  presented  in  His  word,  inter- 
preted on  the  principles  of  grammatico-historical  exegesis, 
rather  than  on  the  miserable  appliances  of  bigotry,  pride, 
malice,  ambition,  envy,  and  conscious  individual  weakness, 
so  eagerly  sought  and  often  mischievously  employed  by  those 
who  intrigue  with  ministers,  and  virtually  pronounce  the 
decisions  of  ecclesiastical  courts  and  councils,  presbyteries 
and  synods,  to  be  authoritative  and  final,  conclusive  and 
infallible. 

As  to  Prof  S.'s  assuming,  for  a  moment,  the  position  he 
opposes,  to  trace  out  some  of  its  consequences,  App.  pp.  186, 
187, 1  deem  it  totally  unnecessary  to  notice  and  reply  to  such 
ribaldry.  I  was  going  to  give  it  even  a  harsher  name ;  for  as  he 
starts  from  positions  which  I  have  not  laid  down,  and  which 
are  not  legitimately  deducible  from  any  thing  I  have  said,  but 
which  he  obtains  and  maintains  by  ringing  his  changes  on 
his  meaning  of  the  simple  word  literal,  I  am  in  no  wise  con- 
cerned to  follow  him  or  listen  to  his  badinage.  And  as  to 
his  utter  contempt  of  the  idea  of  the  restoration  of  the  Jews, 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  175 

and  kindred  topics,  both  in  his  appendix  and  his  sermon 
preached  at  the  ordination  of  Rev.  W  G.  Schauffler,  Nov. 
14,  1831,  wherein  he  just  as  flatly  contradicts  the  Scriptures, 
as  in  the  cases  I  have  already  pointed  out,  I  have  but  to  say, 
in  his  own  words,  "  no  principles  of  hermeneutics  can  be 
sound  which  make  the  Bible  to  contradict  itself,"  which, 
whatever  may  be  said  of  his,  and  whatever  he  has  falsely 
charged  about  a  yoke  of  bondage,  &c.,  he  has  failed  in  every 
respect  to  show  that  mine  have  done.  He  has  indeed  under-^ 
taken  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  plans  of  God,  and  imperti- 
nently and  presumptuously  to  ask,  just  as  the  Unitarian  does 
at  times,  in  interpreting  the  oracles  of  God,  in  reference  to 
orthodox  views,  "  Cui  bono  ?"  *'  What  end  is  to  be  answered 
by  all  this  ?"  and  similar  questions.  His  ignorance,  or  ina- 
bility to  comprehend  God's  plans,  is  no  rule  or  reason  for 
interpreting  His  language,  in  some  way  to  adjust  it  to  his 
sense  of  propriety  and  utility.  Christ  was  a  Son  of  David, 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  term,  and  the  establishment  of 
His  kingdom  on  earth,  as  set  forth  by  the  prophets,  and  that 
kingdom,  swayed  by  Him,  first  through  the  agency  of  His 
raised  saints  in  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  yet  having  the  literal 
Jerusalem  and  the  Jewish  people  as  the  centre  of  its  terrene 
organization,  and  the  nations  congregated  around  it  like  so 
many  confederate  tribes,  renders  the  language  of  Jeremiah 
and  others,  at  which  Prof  S.  stumbles,  just  as  plainly  and 
literally  intelligible  as  that  the  Son  of  God  should  be  **  born 
of  a  virgin,  and  his  name  should  be  called  mighty  God,  won- 
derful Counsellor,  the  everlasting  Father,  the  Prince  of  peace, 
and  the  government  should  be  on  his  shoulders." 

Doubtless  Prof  S.  will  regard  all  this  as  proof  of  insanity, 
and  try  to  comfort  himself  with  the  belief  that  I  am  bereft 
of  reason,  as  he  has  intimated  in  no  unequivocal  terms,  App. 
p.  181.  But  the  charge  of  madness  is  very  easily  made  :  not 
always  so  easily  established.  I  might,  indeed,  after  all  I 
have  shown,  with  some  appearance  of  truth  retaliate  : 


176 


Putidius  multo  cerebrum  est,  mihi  crede. 


Believe  me,  dear  reader,  with  all  this  ado 
His  brain  is  more  addled  by  far  of  the  two. 

But  this  would  be  uncourteous  and  unbecoming ;  and  there- 
fore I  content  and  comfort  myself  with  Damasippus'  just 
remark  : 

Velut  sylvis,  ubi  passim 
Palanfes  error  certo  iraraile  pell  it, 
lUe  sinisirorsum,  his  dexirorsum  abit;  unus  utrisque 
Error,  sed  variis  illudit  pariibus  ;  hoc  te 
Crede  modo  insanum    nihilo  sapientior  ille, 
Clui  te  deridet,  caudam  trahat. 

When  in  a  wood  we  leave  the  certain  way, 
One  error  fools  us,  though  we  various  stray  ; 
Some  to  the  left,  some  turn  to  t'other  side: 
So  he,  who  dares  thy  madness  to  deride, 
Though  you  may  frankly  own  yourself  a  fool. 
Behind  him  trails  his  mark  of  ridicule. 


I 


CHAPTER  XV. 

PROF.  STUART's  final  NOTICE  OF  THE  FATHERS  AND  OTHERS. 

He  tells  his  reader  that  he  "  must  not,  for  a  moment,  sup- 
pose, that  the  leading  features  of  Mr.  D.'s  scheme  are  new, 
or  the  product  of  long  continued  and  accurate  investigation, 
on  his  part,  of  the  Scriptures."  In  the  first  part  of  this  sen- 
tence, he  contradicts  himself,  as  I  have  already  shown.  The 
latter  has  meaning,  which  cannot  be  misunderstood,  and  is 
intended  to  insinuate  things  far  beneath  what  common  de- 
cency and  the  respect  he  owes  to  himself  would  have  requir- 
ed, and  certainly  too  far  beneath  my  notice,  at  least  as  long 
as  I  am  no  believer  in  his  omniscience. 

He  has  admitted  the  facts,  which  I  have  stated,  and  the 
truth  of  the  quotations  I  have  given,  relative  to  the  faith  of 
the  Fathers  on  this  subject.  The  only  hint  to  the  contrary, 
that  he  has  dropped,  is  his  remark  about  Justin  Martyr,  the 
text  of  whose  "  so  called  Millennial  passage,"  and  "  the 
only  one,"  (Dial,  cum  Tryphone,  p.  30G  ed.  Colon.)  he  says, 
"  is  not  settled."  The  dispute  about  the  text  I  have  noticed ; 
and  shown,  that  the  rejected  version,  which  learned  authors 
believe  to  be  correct,  makes  his  testimony  still  stronger.  He 
affects  to  be  'doubtful  as  to  Justin  Martyr's  views,  but  is 
constrained  to  admit  "  he  was  a  Millenarian."  Justin 
Martyr's  "  Hints"  are  more  explicit  than  Prof  S.'s,  and  if 
he  wishes  to  know  how  they  strike  other  minds,  beside  mine, 
let  him  consult  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln's  account  of  the  writ- 
ings and  opinions  of  Justin  Martyr,  Chap.  5. 

He  has  admitted,  that  in  Germany  and  Switzerland,  not  a 
few  writers  of  the  same  class  have  appeared  since  the  Refor- 
mation, and  that  for  thirty  or  more  years  have  been  on  the 
increase,  especially  in  England.     He  should  have  also  added 


178  PROF.  Stuart's  final  notice  of 

the  land  of  his  ancestors,  with  whose  literature  and  theology 
it  would  seem  he  is  not  as  well  acquainted  as  with  those  of 
Germany,  and  certainly  much  to  his  loss,  if  it  be  the  fact. 
For  he  has  not  made  the  most  distant  allusion  to  Scotland, 
which  has  furnished  some  of  the  most  powerful  writers  on 
this  subject,  as  in  almost  every  other  department  of  literature 
and  theology.  I  had  even  anticipated  him  in  his  allusion  to 
the  American  Austin,  who,  although  deranged,  nevertheless 
has  given,  in  writings  which  he  has  left  behind  him,  proofs 
of  a  vigorous  intellect,  impaired  by  other  causes  than  his 
Millenarian  views.  His  allusion  to  him  and  to  myself,  in 
the  connection  and  manner  in  which  he  has  made  it,  reminds 
me  more  of  Horace's  wild  bull  than  any  thing  else. 

Foenum  habet  in  cornu,  longe  fuge  dummodo  risum 
Excutiat  sibi,  non  hie  cuiquarn  parcel  amieo. 

Yonder  he  drives — avoid  that  furious  beast ; 

If  he  may  have  his  jest,  he  never  cares 

At  whose  expense,  nor  his  best  friend  he  spares. 

Prof  S.  has  not  pretended  to  deny,  that  the  Fathers, 
whose  testimony  I  have  quoted,  and  the  whole  traditionary 
history  I  have  given,  establishes  the  point  for  which  I  intro- 
duce it,  viz.,  that  the  literal  system  of  interpretation  defined 
and  explained  as  I  have  done,  was  that  which  obtained  in 
the  primitive  church,  and  until  the  simplicity  of  faith  was 
corrupted  by  the  philosophy  of  the  schools.  But  it  is  neces- 
sary for  him  to  set  it  aside,  if  possible,  and  this  he  attempts, 
in  his  usual  ad  invidiam  style  of  argument. 

In  the  first  place,  he  leads  the  reader  to  suppose  that  I 
quote  the  Fathers  "  as  autliorityP  He  does  not  even  hint 
the  real  object  for  which  the  traditionary  history  is  given, 
but  assigns  one  totally  unfounded,  aijd  of  his  own  invidious 
charging. 

Next  he  endeavours  to  throw  odium  in  general,  on  what  I 
have  given,  as  though  it  were  a  long,  unnecessary  effort, 


THE  FATHERS  AND  OTHERS.  179 

spread  out  over  100  pages,  while,  almost  in  the  same  breath, 
with  beautiful  consistency,  he  tells  his  reader  that  "  Corrodi 
has  drawn  it  out  to  four  volumes  ;  and  yet  has  told  his  story 
tersely  and  briefly  too,  in  his  Gescliichte  des  Ckiliasmus." 

But  his  principal  effort  consists  in  endeavouring  to  excite 
prejudices  against  the  Fathers  by  throwing  odium,  first  on 
Lactantius  of  the  4th  century,  who  nevertheless,  with  all  his 
literal  and  figurative  interpretation,  he  says,  "  shuns  many 
of  the  absurdities  into  which  Mr.  D.  has  fallen," — then  on 
Tertullian,  the  loss  of  whose  work  De  spe  Jidelium.,  he 
greatly  regrets, — then  on  Justin  Martyr,  to  which  I  have  al- 
ready referred, — then  on  Ireneeus,  and  finally,  on  Papias, 
Ap.  pp.  191,  192,  reviving  and  repeating  Eusebius's  condem- 
nation of  the  latter,  whose  prejudices  were  just  as  strong  as 
Prof  S.'s,  and  on  the  same  account,  viz.,  that  Papias  took  the 
prophetical  Scriptures  in  their  plain  meaning,  instead  of  ex- 
plaining them  mystically  or  spiritually. 

And  what  makes  this  invidious  attempt  still  worse,  is,  that 
notwithstanding  he  had  promised  his  reader  "  more  than 
once,"  some  "  specimens  of  opinions  among  the  early  advo- 
cates of  the  visible  personal  reign  of  Christ,"  as  puerilities 
and  incongruities  and  absurdities,  to  be  met  in  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers,  sufficient  to  destroy  their  authority,  he  has 
after  all  his  trumpeting  and  flourishing,  confined  himself  to 
the  old  stale  and  hackneyed  extract  from  Papias,  about  the 
wheat  and  grapes,  which  the  earth  would  produce  in  the 
Millennium.  He  has  given  no  specimen  from  Lactantius, 
but  told  us  about  his  "  interpreting  the  Scriptures  now 
literally,  and  then  figuratively,  and  sometimes  both  ways, 
in  the  same  passage" — remarkable  specimens  of  which  can 
be  produced  from  Prof  S.'s  own  Hints.  Of  Tertullian  he 
h^s  given  nothing,  but  what  I  had  done  myself.  Of  Justin 
Martyr,  nothing.  Of  Irenseus,  nothing  more  than  that,  "  in 
support  of  a  visible  and  terrestrial  reign,  the  ingathering  of 
the  Jews,  &c. ;  for  the  most  part,  so  far  as  he  quotes  Scrip- 


180 

ture,  he  quotes  the  same  passages  which  Mr.  D.  also  pro- 
duces, and  interprets  them  in  the  same  literal  way." 

From  Irenaeus  and  Eusebius  he  quotes  the  story  of  Papias' 
wheat  and  grapes,  and  strives  to  create  a  laugh  at  the  ex- 
pense of  ''  Washington  Temperance  Societies,  who  inhibit 
all  kinds  of  intoxicating  drink,"  whose  "  day  he  says  will 
soon  be  over,  when  the  Millennium  of  Papias  and  Irenaeus 
is  come,"  as  though  they  had  identified  with  grapes  the 
abundance  of  intoxicating  drink  ;  but,  as  he  confesses  him- 
self to  have  been  trifling  here,  it  is  almost  condescending  on 
our  part  to  trifle  too,  to  repeat  or  notice  what  he  says. 

Still  it  may  be  necessary  to  remark  that  he  has  done  me 
injustice, — and  with  what  intent  his  own  conscience  may 
answer, — when,  in  allusion  to  this  boasted  extract  of  his,  as 
though  he  had,  and  claimed,  all  the  merit  of  bringing  it  to 
light,  he  says,  ''  Mr.  D.  has  indeed  carefully  suppressed  the 
specimens  which  I  am  about  to  produce."  Prof  S.  knows 
that  I  did  not  quote  the  Fathers  as  "  authority"  per  se  or 
*'  traditionary  authority."  He  knows,  also,  that  I  distin- 
guished carefully  between  their  own  private  opinions  and 
their  historical  testimony  as  to  the  faith  of  the  church.  He 
knows,  further,  that  I  actually  did  refer  to  the  sentiments  of 
Papias,  and  to  this  very  passage,  which  he  has  endeavoured, 
in  imitation  of  Dr.  Whitby,  who  did  the  very  same  thing 
before  him,  to  turn  to  his  account  against  Millenarian  views 
of  Bible  truth.  See  Dissertations,  p.  261.  And  he  knows, 
still  further,  that  I  referred  to  as  respectable  authority  as 
himself,  so  far  as  scholarship,  sound  exposition  of  Scripture, 
and  exalted  standing  are  concerned,  no  less  than  that  of 
Gresswell  in  his  admirable  and  elaborate  work  on  the  Para- 
bles, who  has  surmised,  with  great  plausibility,  that  the  pas- 
sage of  Papias  found  in  Irenseus,  has  been  incorrectly  trans- 
lated ;  and  I  may  add,  according  to  Prof  S.'s  own  rule  of 
interpreting  round  and  large  numbers  in  Scripture,  that  a 
large  number  was  used  to  express  indefinitely  and  hyperboli- 


THE  FATHERS  AND  OTHERS.  181 

cally  Papias'  views  of  the  earth's  exceeding  fruitfulness  during 
the  Millennium,  and  nothing  more.  There  are  internal  evi- 
dences in  the  passages  themselves  that  they  are  mere  hyper- 
bole, a  very  common  figure  of  speech,  adopted  by  fervid 
writers,  when  speaking  especially  on  the  subject  of  the  Mil- 
lennium, whether  literal ists  or  spiritualists. 

Papias'  opinions  on  this  subject — whom,  says  Bengelius, 
*'  people  generally  decry,  without  regarding  what  the  ancients 
say  to  his  praise,^' — had  nothing  to  do  with  the  evidence  I  was 
citing  of  the  faith  of  the  church.  The  joke  is  too  old,  too 
stale,  too  "  putrid,"  which  Prof  S.  has  attempted.  It  failed 
when  Whitby  tried  it,  and  has  long  lain  buried  with  him. 
Like  every  second-hand  joke,  especially  when  exhumed,  it 
fails  still  more  flatly  when  dug  out  of  the  grave  by  Prof.  S. 
He  may  think,  that  if  it  succeeded  with  Whitby,  and  as 
Whitby  probably  thought  it  succeeded  with  Eusebius,  it 
must  certainly  do  so'Vith  Prof.  S.     But  it  will  not  do. 

Nil  agit  exemplum,  litem  quod  lite  resolvit. 

By  such  examples,  truth  can  ne'er  be  tried  : 
They  but  perplex  the  question,  not  decide. 

In  conclusion,  I  have  but  a  remark  or  two  to  make.  If  I 
have  replied  to  Prof  S.  with  severity,  it  is  the  severity  of 
fraternal  faithful  rebuke,  which  I  feel  he  has  merited,  and 
which  Christian  obligation  requires  me  to  administer,  and 
which  I  have  done  not  with  bitterness  or  personal  ill  will. 
If  there  has  been  less  of  that  respect,  with  which  he  is  wont 
to  be  addressed  and  spoken  of,  it  has  been  because  he  has 
not  respected  himself;  but  has  greatly  lowered  himself  be- 
low the  estimation  in  which  I  had  formerly  held  him,  by  the 
style  of  his  argument,  his  contemptuous  treatment  of  myself, 
and  the  ribaldry  of  which  he  has  made  such  liberal  use. 

Should  he  again  turn  his  attention  to  me,  or  to  the  sub- 
ject, there  are  certain  points  which  he  must  fairly  and  logi- 
cally meet ;  and  not  attempt  to  make  any  false  issues.     He 


182  PKOF.  stuart's  final  notice  of 

must  prove  the  assumptions  on  which  he  has  founded  his 
own  exposition  of  prophecy  as  unfolded  in  his  Hints,  and 
which  I  have  denied.  Prof.  S.'s  dogma,  or  assertion,  will 
not  be  received  as  argument,  nor  will  his  Jewish,  Popish  or 
German  authorities.  He  must  meet  fairly  and  fully  the 
question  where,  when,  and  whence  originated  the  idea  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  and  what  is 
the  Scriptural  sense  in  which  those  phrases  were  used  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles, — wherein,  and  how  far,  and  what 
proof  there  is,  that  they  used  them  differently  from  their 
current  import  in  their  day  ?  He  must  further  prove,  from 
the  word  of  God,  what  specific  authority  he  has  for  inter- 
preting such  phrases  as  Zion,  the  Zion  of  God,  the  Hill  of 
God,  Jerusalem,  the  holy  city,  the  Mountain  of  the  Lord,  in 
his  allegorical,  spiritual  sense,  as  denoting  the  church  this 
moment  and  heaven  the  next.  He  must  show — how  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  does  not  guarantee  to  the  Jews  on  their 
repentance  and  conversion,  the  possession  of  the  land  pro- 
mised to  their  forefathers,  and  once  inhabited  by  them, 
how  God  can  in  any  way  be  understood  to  have  promised 
that  land  to  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  themselves ^  when 
they  never  have  possessed  it, — and  how,  on  any  principle  or 
pretext  whatever,  which  will  commend  itself  to  the  sober 
judgment  of  common  sense,  the  possession  of  an  inheri- 
tance by  their  remote  posterity  could  be  spoken  of  and 
promised  as  their  personal  possession  and  estate.  Espe- 
cially must  he  meet  the  question  fairly  and  fully  whether 
the  kingdom  of  God,  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  spoken  of 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  is  not  regarded  by  them  as  fu- 
ture— not  something  in  another  globe  or  in  heaven,  but 
here,  on  this  earth,  to  be  developed  in  a  new  and  glorious 
dispensation,  to  be  introduced  by  Jesus  Christ  at  his  per- 
sonal visible  coming. 

These    are   grave    and    solemn   themes.     Minds   of  the 
highest  order,   Christians  of  the  most  ardent  and  devoted 


.^  THE  FATHERS  AND  OTHERS.  183 

piety,  and  scholars  of  the  profoundest  erudition,  have  em- 
braced the  Millenarian  faith  as  the  true  and  genuine  import 
of  God's  promises  and  the  scheme  of  prophecy.  Modesty 
and  humility,  patient  and  laborious  investigation,  the  ab- 
sence of  every  thing  like  dogmatism  and  ridicule,  become 
those  who  would  inquire  into  the  import  of  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures in  these  matters.  When  Prof  S.  has  any  arguments 
to  submit,  suggestions  to  oiFer,  analysis  of  Scripture  to  pre- 
sent, expositions  and  applications  of  his  own  principles  of 
interpretation  to  the  promises  and  predictions  of  the  word 
of  God  to  ej^bit,  if  done  in  a  respectful,  courteous,  be- 
coming manner,  even  though  differing  from  his  Millenarian 
brethren,  he  will  find  them  willing  to  give  them  all  due 
consideration.  Truth  is  to  be  elicited  anC^established  in 
no  other  way  :  and  whatever  may  be  the  action  of  councils, 
the  decrees  of  ecclesiastical  bodies,  the  dogmas  of  the 
schools,  the  prescription  of  ages,  the  errors  and  controlling 
influence  of  public  opinion,  in  the  end  the  truth  must 
|riumph. 

MAGNA  EST  VERITAS  ET   PREVALEBIT. 


THE     END. 


*, 


# 


-«?■ 


t 


•-' 


# 


s< 


# 


% 


p 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY— TEL.  NO.  642^405 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below»  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


REC'DLD  JUN277Q  -5PM  2  g 


L.i;--  k. 


x197^i  1  # 


M^'D  CIRC  D£Pr 


ne  s'lt  jQ 


LD21A-60to-3,'70 
(N5382sl0)476-A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


'fc 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


